Manraj Kaur1, Andrea Pusic2, Chris Gibbons2, Anne F Klassen3. 1. School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. Patient-Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Brigham Health, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data are increasingly being collected over the internet or on a smart device by means of electronic versions (e-PROMs). Limited evidence exists about factors influencing e-PROM implementation in outpatient clinics. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify barriers to collection of PRO data from different locations (home or cosmetic surgery office) by means of different modes (paper vs e-PROM) from the perspective of patients, plastic surgeons, and clinic administrative staff; and to explore patient preferences for the design of e-PROM platforms. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 patients, 3 cosmetic surgeons, and administrative staff. Patients were shown 1 of the 3 PROMs (ie, the BODY-Q Satisfaction with Body scale, BREAST-Q Augmentation Module Satisfaction with Breast scale, or FACE-Q Satisfaction with Facial Appearance scale). The formats included paper and electronic (REDCap and TickiT) on a tablet and laptop computer. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Patients and providers preferred electronic over paper format. The flexibility of the hardware, data entry point (remote location vs point-of-care), and the privacy of the data were the most recurring themes from the patient's perspective. The objective of collecting PROM data, role in peer-benchmarking, and return on investment were key to surgeons and administrative staff. CONCLUSIONS: The e-PROMs were well accepted in the community setting by the patients and plastic surgeons alike. The design and interface features of e-PROMs were explored in this study, which may be useful for future, mixed method studies evaluating the implementation of e-PROMs.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data are increasingly being collected over the internet or on a smart device by means of electronic versions (e-PROMs). Limited evidence exists about factors influencing e-PROM implementation in outpatient clinics. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify barriers to collection of PRO data from different locations (home or cosmetic surgery office) by means of different modes (paper vs e-PROM) from the perspective of patients, plastic surgeons, and clinic administrative staff; and to explore patient preferences for the design of e-PROM platforms. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 patients, 3 cosmetic surgeons, and administrative staff. Patients were shown 1 of the 3 PROMs (ie, the BODY-Q Satisfaction with Body scale, BREAST-Q Augmentation Module Satisfaction with Breast scale, or FACE-Q Satisfaction with Facial Appearance scale). The formats included paper and electronic (REDCap and TickiT) on a tablet and laptop computer. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS:Patients and providers preferred electronic over paper format. The flexibility of the hardware, data entry point (remote location vs point-of-care), and the privacy of the data were the most recurring themes from the patient's perspective. The objective of collecting PROM data, role in peer-benchmarking, and return on investment were key to surgeons and administrative staff. CONCLUSIONS: The e-PROMs were well accepted in the community setting by the patients and plastic surgeons alike. The design and interface features of e-PROMs were explored in this study, which may be useful for future, mixed method studies evaluating the implementation of e-PROMs.
Authors: Meg E Morris; Natasha Brusco; Jeffrey Woods; Paul S Myles; Anita Hodge; Cathy Jones; Damien Lloyd; Vincent Rovtar; Amanda Clifford; Victoria Atkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Caitlin Graupner; Merel L Kimman; Suzanne Mul; Annerika H M Slok; Danny Claessens; Jos Kleijnen; Carmen D Dirksen; Stéphanie O Breukink Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 3.603