4.7 Article

Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

期刊

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 120-127

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.08.012

关键词

Usability testing; User testing; eHealth; Electronic patient reported outcome measures; Electronic system; Chronic kidney disease; ePROM

资金

  1. Health Foundation's Improvement Science Programme
  2. National Institute for Health Research Fellowship
  3. NIHR through the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for West Midlands (CLAHRC-WM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term medical condition associated with symptoms which may negatively impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures or questionnaires may be used to capture symptoms/HRQOL experienced by patients with advanced CKD. Method: Two PRO questionnaires were electronically adapted and incorporated in an electronic system developed at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHB), Birmingham. Usability testing was conducted with patients with advanced CKD. Qualitative methodology was used to elicit participants' views. Results: Participants had a mean age of 64.3 years (range: 36-87 years). All owned electronic devices and had access to the internet. The mean time required to complete the two electronic questionnaires was 15.9 min (range = 8-34 min). Patients who had difficulties with the system were those who had the least experience of using the internet and electronic devices. The average usability and satisfaction score was 4.6 (5-point scale). Conclusions: Our study suggests that individuals with advanced CKD may find the Renal ePROM system acceptable and easy to use. The use of the Renal ePROM may complement clinician-reported outcomes and assist with the management of patients with advanced CKD.

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