4.7 Article

Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires

Journal

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 67, Issue 12, Pages 1739-1741

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.090209

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. German Federal Minister of Education and Research [01GI/0447]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We evaluated the feasibility of electronic data capture of self-administered patient questionnaires using a Tablet PC for integration in routine patient management; we also compared these data with results received from corresponding paper-pencil versions. Methods: Standardised patient questionnaires (FFbH/ HAQ, BASDAI, SF-36) were implemented in our documentation software. 153 outpatients ( rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, spondyloarthritis) completed sets of questionnaires as paper-pencil and electronic versions using a Tablet PC. The quality and validity of data obtained using a Tablet PC and the capability of disabled patients to handle it were assigned; patients' experiences, preferences and computer/internet use were also assessed. Results: Scores obtained by direct data entry on the Tablet PC did not differ from the scores obtained by the paper-pencil questionnaires in the complete group and disease subgroups. No major difficulties using the Tablet PC occurred. 62.1% preferred remote data entry in the future. Seven (4.6%) patients felt uncomfortable with the Tablet PC due to their rheumatic disease. Conclusions: Self-administered questionnaires via Tablet PC are a facile and capable option in patients with rheumatic diseases to monitor disease activity, efficacy and safety assessments continuously. Tablet PC applications offers directly available data for clinical decision-making improves quality of care by effective patient monitoring, and contributes to patients' empowerment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available