Strategies to use tablet computers for collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Anita Molzahn¹  Kara Schick-Makaroff¹ 

[1] Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Level 3, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Ave, Edmonton T6G 1C9, AB, Canada

关键词: Nursing;    iPad;    Tablet computers;    ePRO;    Electronic patient-reported outcomes;   

Others  :  1133900
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0205-1

 received in 2014-09-16, accepted in 2014-12-30,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Mobile devices are increasingly being used for data collection in research. However, many researchers do not have experience in collecting data electronically. Hence, the purpose of this short report was to identify issues that emerged in a study that incorporated electronic capture of patient-reported outcomes in clinical settings, and strategies used to address the issues.

Findings

The issues pertaining to electronic patient-reported outcome data collection were captured qualitatively during a study on use of electronic patient-reported outcomes in two home dialysis units. Fifty-six patients completed three surveys on tablet computers, including the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and a satisfaction measure. Issues that arose throughout the research process were recorded during ethics reviews, implementation process, and data collection. Four core issues emerged including logistics of technology, security, institutional and financial support, and electronic design.

Conclusions

Although use of mobile devices for data collection has many benefits, it also poses new challenges for researchers. Advance consideration of possible issues that emerge in the process, and strategies that can help address these issues, may prevent disruption and enhance validity of findings.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Schick-Makaroff and Molzahn; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Basch E, Goldfarb S: Electronic patient-reported outcomes for collecting sensitive information from patients. J Support Oncol 2009, 7:98-99.
• [2]Dupont A, Wheeler J, Herndon JE II, Coan A, Zafar SY, Hood L, Patwardhan M, Shaw HS, Lynerly HK, Abernethy AP: Use of tablet personal computers for sensitive patient-reported information. J Support Oncol 2009, 7:91-97.
• [3]Smith SK, Rowe K, Abernethy AP: Use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement system to improve distress management in oncology. Palliat Support Care 2014, 12:69-73.
• [4]Zbrozek A, Hebert J, Gogates G, Thorell R, Dell C, Molsen E, Craig G, Grice K, Kern S, Hines S: Validation of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data – Recommendations for clinical trial teams: Report of the ISPOR ePRO Systems Validation Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013, 16:48-489.
• [5]Abernethy AP, Ahmad A, Zafar SY, Wheeler JL, Reese JB, Lynerly HK: Electronic patient-reported data capture as a foundation of rapid learning cancer care. Med Care 2010, 48(Suppl 1):S32-S38.
• [6]Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E: Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA-Cancer J Clin 2012, 62:337-347.
• [7]Chang Y-J, Chang C-H, Peng C-L, Wu H-C, Lin H-C, Wang J-Y, Li T-C, Yeh Y-C, Liang W-M: Measurement equivalence and feasibility of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: paper-and-pencil versus touch-screen administration. Health Qual Life Out 2014, 12:1-10.
• [8]Coons SJ: ePRO systems validation: Clearly defining the roles of clinical trial teams and ePRO system providers. Value Health 2013, 16:457-458.
• [9]Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Cella D, Basch E: ISOPOR ePRO Task Force: Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value Health 2009, 12:419-429.
• [10]Dy SM, Roy J, Ott GE, McHale M, Kennedy C, Kutner JS, Tien A: Tell Us™: A web-based tool for improving communication among patients, families, and providers in hospice and palliative care through systematic data specification, collection and use. J Pain Symptom 2011, 42:526-534.
• [11]Espallargues M, Valderas JM, Alonso J: Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med Care 2000, 38:175-186.
• [12]Holzner B, Giesinger JM, Pinggera J, Zugal S, Schöpf F, Oberguggenberger AS, Gamper EM, Zabernigg A, Weber B, Rumpold G: The computer-based health evaluation software (CHES): a software for electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012, 12:126-137. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MH, Hess R, Miller DM, Reeve BB, Santana M: Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 2012, 21:1305-1314.
• [14]Schick-Makaroff K, Molzahn A. Use of iPads to assess health-related quality of life: a feasibility study in outpatient home dialysis clinics. CJKHD 2014, 1. doi:10.1186/s40697-014-0022-9
• [15]Ashley L, Jones H, Forman D, Newsham A, Brown J, Downing A, Velikova G, Wright P: Feasibility test of a UK-scalable electronic system for regular collection of patient-reported outcome measures and linkage with clinical cancer registry data: the electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011, 11:1-10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Ashley L, Jones H, Thomas J, Newsham A, Downing A, Morris E, Brown J, Velikova G, Forman D, Wright P: Integrating patient reported outcomes with clinical cancer registry data: a feasibility study of the electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system. J Med Internet Res 2013, 15:e230.
• [17]Brundage M, Blazeby J, Revicki D, Bass B, de Vet H, Duffy H, Efficace F, King M, Lam CLK, Moher D, Scott J, Sloan J, Snyder C, Yount S, Calvert M: Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:1161-1175.
• [18]Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD: for the CONSORT PRO Group: Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials. JAMA 2013, 309:814-822.
• [19]Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, Schwartz C, Revicki DA, Moinpour CM, McLeod LD, Lyons JC, Lenderking WR, Hinds PS, Hays RD, Greenhalgh J, Gershon R, Feeny D, Fayers PM, Cella D, Brundage M, Ahmed S, Aaronson NK, Butt Z: ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:1889-1905.
• [20]Basch E, Iasonos A, Barz A, Culkin A, Kris MG, Artz D, Fearn P, Speakman J, Farquhar R, Scher HI, McCabe M, Schrag D: Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. JCO 2007, 25:5374-5380.
• [21]Davison SN, Jhandri GS, Johnson JA: Cross-sectional validity of a modified Edmonton symptom assessment system in dialysis patients: a simple assessment of symptom burden. Kidney Int 2006, 69:1621-1625.
• [22]Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, Coons SJ, Carter WB: Development of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) instrument. Qual Life Res 1994, 3:329-338.
• [23]Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) Complete [http://www.kdqol-complete.org/]
• [24]Thorne S: Interpretive Description. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA; 2008.
• [25]Sandelowski M, Barroso J: Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qual Health Res 2003, 13:905-923.