4.6 Article

A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: impact on compliance, accuracy, and acceptability

期刊

PAIN
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 213-219

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.10.005

关键词

diary assessment; handheld computer; electronic diaries; compliance; accuracy; chronic pain

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [K23 MH01837] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electronic diary assessment of pain and disability has become increasingly popular in adult chronic pain research but use of this methodology with children has received limited attention. The aim of this study was to compare two formats of a prospective daily diary (handheld computer = e-diary; paper diary = p-diary) on children's compliance, accuracy, and acceptability ratings. Sixty children, ages 8 -16 (M = 12.3) with headaches or juvenile idiopathic arthritis, were randomized to receive either e-diaries administered via home visits (it = 30) or p-diaries (n = 30) handed out during clinic visits for return by mail. Results demonstrated significant mean differences in diary entries completed between groups, with children with e-diaries completing more days (M = 6.6) compared to children with p-diaries (M = 3.8) P < 0.001. Diaries returned by children in the p-diary group contained significantly more errors and omissions compared to diaries returned by children in the e-diary group (which contained none), P < 0.001. Children rated both diary formats as highly acceptable and easy to use. A significant gender X diary format interaction (P < 0.01) was found for compliance where boys demonstrated greater compliance with the e-diary format. Findings demonstrated that the e-diary was feasible to use with children and showed significantly greater compliance and accuracy in diary recording compared to traditional paper diaries in a population of children with recurrent pain. (C) 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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