nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.04.2008 | Original Article

Patient Difficulty Using Tablet Computers to Screen in Primary Care

verfasst von: Rachel Hess, MD MSc, Aimee Santucci, PhD, Kathleen McTigue, MD, MS, MPH, Gary Fischer, MD, Wishwa Kapoor, MD, MPH

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Patient-administered computerized questionnaires represent a novel tool to assist primary care physicians in the delivery of preventive health care.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess patient-reported ease of use with a self-administered tablet computer-based questionnaire in routine clinical care.

Design

All patients seen in a university-based primary care practice were asked to provide routine screening information using a touch-screen tablet computer-based questionnaire. Patients reported difficulty using the tablet computer after completion of their first questionnaire.

Patients

Ten thousand nine hundred ninety-nine patients completed the questionnaire between January 2004 and January 2006.

Measurements

We calculated rates of reporting difficulty (no difficulty, some difficulty, or a lot of difficulty) using the tablet computers based on patient age, sex, race, educational attainment, marital status, and number of comorbid medical conditions. We constructed multivariable ordered logistic models to identify predictors of increased self-reported difficulty using the computer.

Results

The majority of patients (84%) reported no difficulty using the tablet computers to complete the questionnaire, with only 3% reporting a lot of difficulty. Significant predictors of reporting more difficulty included increasing age [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–1.05)]; Asian race (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8–2.9); African American race (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.6); less than a high school education (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.6–3.4); and the presence of comorbid medical conditions (1–2: OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.5; ≥3: OR 1.7 95% CI 1.5–2.1).

Conclusions

The majority of primary care patients reported no difficulty using a self-administered tablet computer-based questionnaire. While computerized questionnaires present opportunities to collect routine screening information from patients, attention must be paid to vulnerable groups.

Bachman JW. The patient-computer interview: a neglected tool that can aid the clinician. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78(1):67–78.PubMed

Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(1):15–22.PubMedCrossRef

McGuire M, Bakst K, Fairbanks L, et al. Cognitive, mood, and functional evaluations using touchscreen technologies. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2000;188(12):813–7.PubMedCrossRef

Jette AM, Davies A, Cleary PD, et al. The functional status questionnaire: reliability and validity when used in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1(3):143–9.PubMedCrossRef

Feigelson ME, Dwight SA. Can asking questions by computer improve the candidness of responding? A meta-analytic perspective. Consult Psychol J: Prac Res. 2000;52(4):248–55.CrossRef

US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(5):355–61.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for suicide risk: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(10):820–1.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(7):554–6.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for family and intimate partner violence: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(5):382–6.

10.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for thyroid disease: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(2):125–7.

11.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for obesity in adults: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(11):930–2.

12.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):212–4.

13.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):129–31.

14.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for depression: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(10):760–4.

15.

Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–41.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Tsui JI, Dodson K, Jacobson TA. Cardiovascular disease prevention counseling in residency: resident and attending physician attitudes and practices. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004;96(8):1080–3. 1088–91.PubMed

17.

Melin I, Karlstrom B, Berglund L, Zamfir M, Rossner S. Education and supervision of health care professionals to initiate, implement and improve management of obesity. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;58(2):127–36.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Gilbert T, Lowe HJ, Kapoor WN, Schulberg HC. The electronic medical record. A randomized trial of its impact on primary care physicians’ initial management of major depression [corrected]. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(2):189–97.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Lowe HJ, Gilbert T, Kapoor WN, Schulberg HC. A randomized trial using computerized decision support to improve treatment of major depression in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(7):493–503.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Bock B, Niaura , Fontes A, Bock F. Acceptability of computer assessments among ethnically diverse, low-income smokers. Am J Health Promot. 1999;13(5):299–304.PubMed

21.

Hess , Matthews K, McNeil M, Chang CCH, Kapoor W, Bryce C. Health services research in the privacy age. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(11):1045–9.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Dickinson A, Gregor P. Designing computer systems for and with older users. Behav Inf Technol. 2007;26(4):273–4.CrossRef

23.

Hawthorn D. Interface design and engagement with older people. Behav Inf Technol. 2007;26(4):333–41.CrossRef

24.

Dickinson A, Arnott J, Prior S. Methods for human–computer interaction research with older people. Behav Inf Technol. 2007;26(4):343–52.CrossRef

25.

Larkin-Lieffers PA. The older adult and public library computer technology: a pilot study in a Canadian setting. Libri. 2000;50:225–34.CrossRef

26.

Main D, Quintela J, Araya-Guerra , Holcomb S, Pace W. Exploring patient reactions to pen-tablet computers: a report from CaReNet. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):421–4.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Patient Difficulty Using Tablet Computers to Screen in Primary Care
verfasst von: Rachel Hess, MD MSc
Aimee Santucci, PhD
Kathleen McTigue, MD, MS, MPH
Gary Fischer, MD
Wishwa Kapoor, MD, MPH
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2008
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2008
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0500-1

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Patient Difficulty Using Tablet Computers to Screen in Primary Care