Tasha M Schoppee1, Brenda W Dyal, Lisa Scarton, Miriam O Ezenwa, Prashant Singh, Yingwei Yao, Marie L Suarez, Zaijie J Wang, Robert E Molokie, Diana J Wilkie. 1. Author Affiliations: Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville (Ms Schoppee and Drs Dyal, Ezenwa, Yao, and Wilkie); Community Hospice & Palliative Care, Jacksonville, Florida (Ms Schoppee); Department of Family, Community, and Health System Science, College of Nursing (Dr Scarton), and Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering (Mr Singh), University of Florida, Gainesville; and Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing (Dr. Suarez), Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy (Drs Wang and Molokie), and Department of Medicine, College of Medicine (Dr Molokie), University of Illinois; and Jesse Brown VA Medical Center (Dr Molokie), Chicago.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In several studies, investigators have successfully used an internet-enabled PAINReportIt tablet to allow patients to report their pain to clinicians in real-time, but it is unknown how acceptable this technology is to patients and caregivers when used in their homes. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to examine computer use acceptability scores of patients with end-stage cancer in hospice and their caregivers and to compare the scores for differences by age, gender, race, and computer use experience. INTERVENTION/ METHODS: Immediately after using the tablet, 234 hospice patients and 231 caregivers independently completed the Computer Acceptability Scale (maximum scores of 14 for patients and 9 for caregivers). RESULTS: The mean (SD) Computer Acceptability score was 12.2 (1.9) for patients and 8.5 (0.9) for caregivers. Computer Acceptability scores were significantly associated with age and with previous computer use for both patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: This technology was highly acceptable to patients and caregivers for reporting pain in real time to their hospice nurses. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings provide encouraging results that are worthy of serious consideration for patients who are in end stages of illness, including older persons and those with minimal computer experience. Increasing availability of technology can provide innovative methods for improving care provided to patients facing significant cancer-related pain even at the end of life.
BACKGROUND: In several studies, investigators have successfully used an internet-enabled PAINReportIt tablet to allow patients to report their pain to clinicians in real-time, but it is unknown how acceptable this technology is to patients and caregivers when used in their homes. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to examine computer use acceptability scores of patients with end-stage cancer in hospice and their caregivers and to compare the scores for differences by age, gender, race, and computer use experience. INTERVENTION/ METHODS: Immediately after using the tablet, 234 hospice patients and 231 caregivers independently completed the Computer Acceptability Scale (maximum scores of 14 for patients and 9 for caregivers). RESULTS: The mean (SD) Computer Acceptability score was 12.2 (1.9) for patients and 8.5 (0.9) for caregivers. Computer Acceptability scores were significantly associated with age and with previous computer use for both patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: This technology was highly acceptable to patients and caregivers for reporting pain in real time to their hospice nurses. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings provide encouraging results that are worthy of serious consideration for patients who are in end stages of illness, including older persons and those with minimal computer experience. Increasing availability of technology can provide innovative methods for improving care provided to patients facing significant cancer-related pain even at the end of life.
Authors: Carmen W H Chan; Wilson Tam; Karis K F Cheng; Ying Yu Chui; Winnie K W So; Tony Mok; Connie Wong; Justin McReynolds; Donna L Berry Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2010-11-18 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Tracy L Mitzner; Julie B Boron; Cara Bailey Fausset; Anne E Adams; Neil Charness; Sara J Czaja; Katinka Dijkstra; Arthur D Fisk; Wendy A Rogers; Joseph Sharit Journal: Comput Human Behav Date: 2010-11-01
Authors: Diana J Wilkie; Young Ok Kim; Marie L Suarez; Colleen M Dauw; Stephen J Stapleton; Geraldine Gorman; Judith Storfjell; Zhongsheng Zhao Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Miriam O Ezenwa; Marie L Suarez; Jesus D Carrasco; Theresa Hipp; Anayza Gill; Jacob Miller; Robert Shea; David Shuey; Zhongsheng Zhao; Veronica Angulo; Timothy McCurry; Joanna Martin; Yingwei Yao; Robert E Molokie; Zaijie Jim Wang; Diana J Wilkie Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Donna L Berry; Fangxin Hong; Barbara Halpenny; Anne Partridge; Erica Fox; Jesse R Fann; Seth Wolpin; William B Lober; Nigel Bush; Upendra Parvathaneni; Dagmar Amtmann; Rosemary Ford Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-07-12 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Natasha Ansari; Christina M Wilson; Mallorie B Heneghan; Kathie Supiano; Kathi Mooney Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Saunjoo L Yoon; Lisa Scarton; Laurie Duckworth; Yingwei Yao; Miriam O Ezenwa; Marie L Suarez; Robert E Molokie; Diana J Wilkie Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: M Kay M Judge; Roberta Luedke; Brenda W Dyal; Miriam O Ezenwa; Diana J Wilkie Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Virginia LeBaron; Rachel Bennett; Ridwan Alam; Leslie Blackhall; Kate Gordon; James Hayes; Nutta Homdee; Randy Jones; Yudel Martinez; Emmanuel Ogunjirin; Tanya Thomas; John Lach Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-08-26