scholarly journals Usability testing of EirV3-a computer-based tool for patient reported outcome measures in cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. viii625
Author(s):  
H. Krogstad ◽  
S.M. Sundt-Hansen ◽  
M.J. Hjermstad ◽  
L.Å Hågensen ◽  
S. Kaasa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Usability Testing ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Computer Based

scholarly journals Usability testing of EirV3—a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 1835-1844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilde Krogstad ◽  
Stine Marie Sundt-Hansen ◽  
Marianne Jensen Hjermstad ◽  
Liv Ågot Hågensen ◽  
Stein Kaasa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Usability Testing ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Computer Based

scholarly journals VALIDATION OF A COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEM FOR THE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN PEDIATRIC SPORTS MEDICINE

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0003
Author(s):  
Meagan J. Sabatino ◽  
Catherine V. Gans ◽  
Aaron J. Zynda ◽  
Chan-Hee Jo ◽  
Jane Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Electronic Format ◽  
Pediatric Sports Medicine ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Activity Scale ◽  
Tegner Activity Scale

Background: In orthopedics, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become popularized due to an increase in patient-centered research and pay for performance reimbursement models. Most pediatric PROMs have been utilized and validated in paper format. However, the use of a computer-based system may improve patient and physician efficiency, decrease cost, ensure completion, provide instantaneous information, and minimize inconvenience. The purpose of the study is to validate the use, evaluate patient satisfaction, and review differences of electronic compared to paper PROMs in a pediatric sports medicine practice. Methods: New patients between 12 – 19 years of age with a knee-related primary complaint were identified prior to their appointment. Patients were then randomized into two groups to complete standard clinical PROMs; including the Pedi-IKDC, HSS Pedi-FABS, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and PedsQL-Teen. Group 1 completed paper forms followed by electronic, while Group 2 received the electronic format followed by paper, with a 10-minute break between formats in each group. Following the completion of PROMs, subjects completed a satisfaction survey. A Pearson’s correlation was used to calculate the association between the measures and a paired t-test to compare means between electronic and paper forms. Reliability analysis was conducted using an ICC calculation. Results: 87 subjects were enrolled with one excluded due to incomplete PROMs, for a total of 86. 54 subjects were female and 32 were male with an average age of 14.3 years (range 12-18). A high degree of reliability was found when comparing the paper and electronic versions of the Pedi-IKDC, HSS Pedi-FABS, PedsQL 13-18 and the Tegner activity scale (Figure 1). Differences were noted between the VAS scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic (5.3 vs 4.6, p<0.001). Excluding the 10-minute break, it took subjects an average of 21.3 minutes to complete the PROMs. Although not significant, electronic PROMs took less time than paper on average (10.0 min vs 11.2 min, p=0.096). All subjects endorsed that PROMs captured on paper were the same as electronic with 69.8% of subjects preferring the electronic PROMs. 67.4% of subjects reported they felt the electronic format was faster, with only 5.8% of patients reporting the electronic forms were hard or confusing. 93.0% stated they would complete forms at home prior to appointments if it were an option and 91.8% were not concerned about the safety/privacy of electronic forms. Conclusion/Significance: PROMs captured electronically were reliable and valid when compared to paper, with differences noted only on the VAS. Electronic PROMs may be quicker, will not require manual scoring, and are preferred by patients. Electronic PROMs will improve the clinician’s ability to collect complete and validated data while reducing the burden on the clinical staff and patients. [Figure: see text]

scholarly journals Development of EirV3: A Computer-Based Tool for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilde Krogstad ◽  
Cinzia Brunelli ◽  
Kari Sand ◽  
Eivind Andersen ◽  
Herish Garresori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
End Users ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
User Friendly

Purpose Immediate transfer of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in medical consultations is facilitated by electronic assessments. We aimed to describe the rationale and development of Eir version 3 (EirV3), a computer-based symptom assessment tool for cancer, with emphasis on content and user-friendliness. Methods EirV3’s specifications and content were developed through multiprofessional, stepwise, and iterative processes (from 2013 to 2016), with literature reviews on traditional and electronic assessment and classification methods, formative iterative usability tests with end-users, and assessment of patient preferences for paper versus electronic assessments. Results EirV3 has the following two modules: Eir-Patient for PROMs registration on tablets and Eir-Doctor for presentation of PROMs in a user-friendly interface on computers. Eir-Patient starts with 19 common cancer symptoms followed by specific, in-depth questions for endorsed symptoms. The pain section includes a body map for pain location and intensity, whereas physical functioning, nutritional intake, and well-being are standard questions for all. Data are wirelessly transferred to Eir-Doctor. Symptoms with intensity scores ≥ 3 (on a 0 to 10 scale) are marked in red, with brighter colors corresponding to higher intensity, and supplemented with graphs displaying symptom development over time. Usability results showed that patients and health care providers found EirV3 to be intuitive, easy to use, and relevant. When comparing PROM assessments on paper versus tablets (n = 114), 19% of patients preferred paper, 41% preferred tablets, and 40% had no preference. Median intraclass correlation coefficient between paper and tablets (0.815) was excellent. Conclusion Iterative test rounds followed by continuous improvements led to a user-friendly, applicable symptom assessment tool, EirV3, developed for and by end-users. EirV3 is undergoing international testing of clinical and cross-cultural adaptability.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adults with Hand Trauma: A Systematic Review

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2-4) ◽  
pp. 145-157
Author(s):  
Daniel Alexander Waltho ◽  
Manraj Nirmal Kaur ◽  
Mary Ellen Gedye ◽  
Achilleas Thoma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Hand Trauma ◽  
Patient Reported

Impact of Depression on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Lumbar Spine Decompression

Spine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 434-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Merrill ◽  
Lukas P. Zebala ◽  
Colleen Peters ◽  
Sheeraz A. Qureshi ◽  
Steven J. McAnany
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

Preoperative Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Common Hand Surgeries

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472097412
Author(s):  
Ali Aneizi ◽  
Dominique Gelmann ◽  
Dominic J. Ventimiglia ◽  
Patrick M. J. Sajak ◽  
Vidushan Nadarajah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Opioid Users

Background: The objectives of this study were to determine the baseline patient characteristics associated with preoperative opioid use and to establish whether preoperative opioid use is associated with baseline patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing common hand surgeries. Methods: Patients undergoing common hand surgeries from 2015 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective orthopedic registry at a single academic institution. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether patients were opioid users versus nonusers. On enrollment in the registry, patients completed 6 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Fatigue, Social Satisfaction, Anxiety, and Depression), the Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (BMHQ), a surgical expectations questionnaire, and Numeric Pain Scale (NPS). Statistical analysis included multivariable regression to determine whether preoperative opioid use was associated with patient characteristics and preoperative scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Results: After controlling for covariates, an analysis of 353 patients (opioid users, n = 122; nonusers, n = 231) showed that preoperative opioid use was associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (odds ratio [OR], 2.88), current smoking (OR, 1.91), and lower body mass index (OR, 0.95). Preoperative opioid use was also associated with significantly worse baseline PROMIS scores across 6 domains, lower BMHQ scores, and NPS hand scores. Conclusions: Preoperative opioid use is common in hand surgery patients with a rate of 35%. Preoperative opioid use is associated with multiple baseline patient characteristics and is predictive of worse baseline scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Future studies should determine whether such associations persist in the postoperative setting between opioid users and nonusers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document