4.7 Article

Digital questionnaire platform in the Danish Blood Donor Study

期刊

COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 101-104

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.07.023

关键词

MeSH; Epidemiology; Surveys and questionnaires; Methods; Data collection; Blood donors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The Danish Blood Donor Study (DBDS) is a prospective, population-based study and biobank. Since 2010, 100,000 Danish blood donors have been included in the study. Prior to July 2015 all participating donors had to complete a paper-based questionnaire. Here we describe the establishment of a digital tablet-based questionnaire platform implemented in blood bank sites across Denmark. Methods: The digital questionnaire was developed using the open source survey software tool LimeSurvey. The participants accesses the questionnaire online with a standard SSL encrypted HTTP connection using their personal civil registration numbers. The questionnaire is placed at a front-end web server and a collection server retrieves the completed questionnaires. Data from blood samples, register data, genetic data and verification of signed informed consent are then transferred to and merged with the questionnaire data in the DBDS database. Results: The digital platform enables personalized questionnaires, presenting only questions relevant to the specific donor by hiding unneeded follow-up questions on screening question results. New versions of questionnaires are immediately available at all blood collection facilities when new projects are initiated. Conclusion: The digital platform is a faster, cost-effective and more flexible solution to collect valid data from participating donors compared to paper-based questionnaires. The overall system can be used around the world by the use of Internet connection, but the level of security depends on the sensitivity of the data to be collected. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据