IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v12y2019i6d10.1007_s40271-019-00376-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for Use and Design of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly M. Dumais

    (ERT)

  • Nadeeka Dias

    (ERT)

  • Laura Khurana

    (ERT)

  • Sarah Tressel Gary

    (ERT)

  • Brooke Witherspoon

    (Endpoint Outcomes)

  • Christopher J. Evans

    (Endpoint Outcomes)

  • Susan M. Dallabrida

    (ERT)

Abstract

Objectives Collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is critical to fully understand chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management and progression, as the impact on health-related quality of life is not well understood by objective measures alone. Electronic PROs (ePROs) are increasingly used because of their advantages over paper data collection, including elimination of transcription errors, increased accuracy and data quality, real-time data reporting, and increased compliance. The objective of this study was to characterize how patients with COPD prefer to use various types of technology to report disease symptoms, and their preferences for ePRO design and display. Methods The sample consisted of subjects with COPD (N = 103) who completed in-person surveys on their ePRO preferences. Results The majority of subjects prefer to use a form of electronic media over paper to report their disease symptoms. Of these electronic methods, subjects most often prefer to use a smartphone provided by their physician. Subjects were also interested in ePRO features, such as knowing estimated PRO completion time at the outset, tracking their progress in real time as they complete a questionnaire, seeing the data that they report in order to track their health status, being encouraged to complete their diary if they fall behind by positive messaging, and being thanked for their completion of a daily diary. Conclusions Investigators should consider including these preferences when designing ePRO assessments. Incorporating patient preferences for ePRO design can ultimately help reduce patient burden and increase engagement, compliance, and improve data quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly M. Dumais & Nadeeka Dias & Laura Khurana & Sarah Tressel Gary & Brooke Witherspoon & Christopher J. Evans & Susan M. Dallabrida, 2019. "Preferences for Use and Design of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(6), pages 621-629, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00376-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00376-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00376-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-019-00376-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi & Jessica Roydhouse & Samantha Cruz Rivera & Paul Kamudoni & Peter Schache & Roger Wilson & Richard Stephens & Melanie Calvert, 2022. "Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Jim Wiegel & Bart Seppen & Marike van der Leeden & Martin van der Esch & Ralph de Vries & Wouter Bos, 2021. "Adherence to Telemonitoring by Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-13, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00376-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.