Cargando…
Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) imp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10501936/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37707633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9 |
_version_ | 1785106213909823488 |
---|---|
author | Salm, Hanna Hentschel, Leopold Eichler, Martin Pink, Daniel Fuhrmann, Stephan Kramer, Michael Reichardt, Peter Schuler, Markus K. |
author_facet | Salm, Hanna Hentschel, Leopold Eichler, Martin Pink, Daniel Fuhrmann, Stephan Kramer, Michael Reichardt, Peter Schuler, Markus K. |
author_sort | Salm, Hanna |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (2010) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment. METHODS: We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013), was administered to group A. RESULTS: We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10501936 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105019362023-09-16 Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study Salm, Hanna Hentschel, Leopold Eichler, Martin Pink, Daniel Fuhrmann, Stephan Kramer, Michael Reichardt, Peter Schuler, Markus K. Support Care Cancer Research PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (2010) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment. METHODS: We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013), was administered to group A. RESULTS: We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-09-14 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10501936/ /pubmed/37707633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Salm, Hanna Hentschel, Leopold Eichler, Martin Pink, Daniel Fuhrmann, Stephan Kramer, Michael Reichardt, Peter Schuler, Markus K. Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
title | Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
title_full | Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
title_short | Evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
title_sort | evaluation of electronic patient–reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10501936/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37707633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08014-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT salmhanna evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy AT hentschelleopold evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy AT eichlermartin evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy AT pinkdaniel evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy AT fuhrmannstephan evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy AT kramermichael evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy AT reichardtpeter evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy AT schulermarkusk evaluationofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomeassessmentininpatientcancercareafeasibilitystudy |