HIV临床研究背景下REDCap系统中电子病例报告表的可用性和用户满意度:DOLAM临床试验用例

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Elisa De Lazzari, Montserrat Laguno, Josep Mallolas, Esteban Martínez
{"title":"HIV临床研究背景下REDCap系统中电子病例报告表的可用性和用户满意度:DOLAM临床试验用例","authors":"Elisa De Lazzari,&nbsp;Montserrat Laguno,&nbsp;Josep Mallolas,&nbsp;Esteban Martínez","doi":"10.1111/jep.70020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The clinical data management within biomedical research has gained importance over the last decade producing an increasing need of a web-based software application providing electronic data capture and clinical data management functionalities to ensure high quality data. We chose REDCap system over OpenClinica (free-distribution) to implement the electronic case report form (eCRF) at our HIV Unit. We then evaluated eCRF usability and stakeholder satisfaction in an upcoming Phase 4 clinical trial.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We assessed the perceived usability of the eCRF by different professional users, including nurses, researchers, study monitors and coordinators of the phase-4 clinical trial, and their satisfaction using the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and the Net Promoter Score (NPS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Nineteen out of 21 persons involved agreed to participate. All were female, with mean age of 35 years (SD: 7), 11 were study coordinators or monitors, 5 nurses and 3 clinicians/researchers. The median SUS was 72.5 (IQR: 62.5; 80.0): monitors/study coordinators had median score of 77.5, researchers/clinicians, 72.5 and nurses, 57.5. Less Information Technology (IT) or computer-experienced scored higher 92.5 (57.5; 95.0) versus more experienced 71.3 (62.5; 78.8). The overall NPS (% promoters–% detractors) was 21.1, 7 (37%) users were promoters, 9 (47%) passives and 3 (16%) detractors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>When adopting a new system, measuring user's perceived usability and satisfaction in a quantitative manner and with validated measures may be useful to identify users' uncovered needs and to improve future interaction user-system that will positively affect the quality of data managed in clinical research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Usability and User's Satisfaction of an Electronic Case Report Form Implemented in the REDCap System in the HIV Clinical Research Context: The Use Case of DOLAM Clinical Trial\",\"authors\":\"Elisa De Lazzari,&nbsp;Montserrat Laguno,&nbsp;Josep Mallolas,&nbsp;Esteban Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The clinical data management within biomedical research has gained importance over the last decade producing an increasing need of a web-based software application providing electronic data capture and clinical data management functionalities to ensure high quality data. We chose REDCap system over OpenClinica (free-distribution) to implement the electronic case report form (eCRF) at our HIV Unit. We then evaluated eCRF usability and stakeholder satisfaction in an upcoming Phase 4 clinical trial.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We assessed the perceived usability of the eCRF by different professional users, including nurses, researchers, study monitors and coordinators of the phase-4 clinical trial, and their satisfaction using the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and the Net Promoter Score (NPS).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Nineteen out of 21 persons involved agreed to participate. All were female, with mean age of 35 years (SD: 7), 11 were study coordinators or monitors, 5 nurses and 3 clinicians/researchers. The median SUS was 72.5 (IQR: 62.5; 80.0): monitors/study coordinators had median score of 77.5, researchers/clinicians, 72.5 and nurses, 57.5. Less Information Technology (IT) or computer-experienced scored higher 92.5 (57.5; 95.0) versus more experienced 71.3 (62.5; 78.8). The overall NPS (% promoters–% detractors) was 21.1, 7 (37%) users were promoters, 9 (47%) passives and 3 (16%) detractors.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>When adopting a new system, measuring user's perceived usability and satisfaction in a quantitative manner and with validated measures may be useful to identify users' uncovered needs and to improve future interaction user-system that will positively affect the quality of data managed in clinical research.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70020\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物医学研究中的临床数据管理在过去十年中变得越来越重要,因此越来越需要基于web的软件应用程序,提供电子数据捕获和临床数据管理功能,以确保高质量的数据。我们选择了REDCap系统,而不是OpenClinica(免费分发)来在我们的HIV部门实施电子病例报告表格(eCRF)。然后,我们在即将到来的4期临床试验中评估eCRF的可用性和利益相关者满意度。方法采用系统可用性量表(SUS)问卷和净推荐值(NPS)评估不同专业用户(包括护士、研究人员、研究监督员和4期临床试验协调员)对eCRF的可用性感知以及满意度。结果21人中有19人同意参与。所有患者均为女性,平均年龄35岁(SD: 7), 11人为研究协调员或监督员,5人为护士,3人为临床医生/研究人员。中位SUS为72.5 (IQR: 62.5;80.0):监测/研究协调员的中位数得分为77.5,研究人员/临床医生的中位数得分为72.5,护士的中位数得分为57.5。信息技术(IT)或计算机经验较少的人得分更高,分别为92.5分(57.5分;95.0)与经验更丰富的71.3 (62.5;78.8)。总体NPS(%推动者- %诋毁者)为21.1,7个(37%)用户是推动者,9个(47%)用户是被动的,3个(16%)用户是诋毁者。在采用新系统时,以定量的方式和经过验证的措施测量用户感知的可用性和满意度可能有助于识别用户未发现的需求,并改善未来的用户-系统交互,这将对临床研究中管理的数据质量产生积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Usability and User's Satisfaction of an Electronic Case Report Form Implemented in the REDCap System in the HIV Clinical Research Context: The Use Case of DOLAM Clinical Trial

Background

The clinical data management within biomedical research has gained importance over the last decade producing an increasing need of a web-based software application providing electronic data capture and clinical data management functionalities to ensure high quality data. We chose REDCap system over OpenClinica (free-distribution) to implement the electronic case report form (eCRF) at our HIV Unit. We then evaluated eCRF usability and stakeholder satisfaction in an upcoming Phase 4 clinical trial.

Methods

We assessed the perceived usability of the eCRF by different professional users, including nurses, researchers, study monitors and coordinators of the phase-4 clinical trial, and their satisfaction using the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and the Net Promoter Score (NPS).

Results

Nineteen out of 21 persons involved agreed to participate. All were female, with mean age of 35 years (SD: 7), 11 were study coordinators or monitors, 5 nurses and 3 clinicians/researchers. The median SUS was 72.5 (IQR: 62.5; 80.0): monitors/study coordinators had median score of 77.5, researchers/clinicians, 72.5 and nurses, 57.5. Less Information Technology (IT) or computer-experienced scored higher 92.5 (57.5; 95.0) versus more experienced 71.3 (62.5; 78.8). The overall NPS (% promoters–% detractors) was 21.1, 7 (37%) users were promoters, 9 (47%) passives and 3 (16%) detractors.

Conclusions

When adopting a new system, measuring user's perceived usability and satisfaction in a quantitative manner and with validated measures may be useful to identify users' uncovered needs and to improve future interaction user-system that will positively affect the quality of data managed in clinical research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信