使用纸质、电子健康记录提示和智能手机应用程序的临床数据收集方法的试点比较。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Meagan E Stabler, John M Westfall, Donald E Nease, Jennifer Raymond, Bruce Jobse, Zoe Daudier, Laurie Emanuele, Elisabeth Wilson, Maureen Boardman, Neil Korsen, Charles D MacLean, Constance van Eeghen, Paula S Hudon, Timothy E Burdick
{"title":"使用纸质、电子健康记录提示和智能手机应用程序的临床数据收集方法的试点比较。","authors":"Meagan E Stabler, John M Westfall, Donald E Nease, Jennifer Raymond, Bruce Jobse, Zoe Daudier, Laurie Emanuele, Elisabeth Wilson, Maureen Boardman, Neil Korsen, Charles D MacLean, Constance van Eeghen, Paula S Hudon, Timothy E Burdick","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2024.240199R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For decades, researchers have utilized paper card studies to assess primary care clinician (PCC) perceptions across various clinical and practice topics. Since 2022, cards can be completed electronically through the electronic health record (EHR) or a novel smartphone application (app). These delivery modalities have not previously been evaluated head-to-head. We report findings from a work in progress comparing paper, EHR, and app-delivered cards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Northern New England CO-OP Practice and Community Based Research Network recruited 15 PCCs from 3 clinics to collect a total of 324 cards from unique patient visits over 4 clinical days per PCC on the topic of \"telehealth burden.\" Each clinic utilized a different data collection modality and collected approximately 100 cards. After completing the cards, we surveyed PCCs about their user experience. Our primary outcomes were PCC experience, card completion rates, and total cost of using the cards.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PCCs reported that data collection was easy and the card study did not disrupt clinical operations regardless of modality. Paper cards had the highest completion rate and were least expensive for a small-scale card study, but were most expensive when scaled due to the large amount of time to transcribe data manually. EHR was the most expensive modality for a small-scale card study, but EHR and app cards scaled better than paper.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While each modality has distinct advantages and disadvantages, all 3 card study data collection methods were acceptable to PCCs and obtained a high response rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":"38 1","pages":"46-55"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12096375/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application.\",\"authors\":\"Meagan E Stabler, John M Westfall, Donald E Nease, Jennifer Raymond, Bruce Jobse, Zoe Daudier, Laurie Emanuele, Elisabeth Wilson, Maureen Boardman, Neil Korsen, Charles D MacLean, Constance van Eeghen, Paula S Hudon, Timothy E Burdick\",\"doi\":\"10.3122/jabfm.2024.240199R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For decades, researchers have utilized paper card studies to assess primary care clinician (PCC) perceptions across various clinical and practice topics. Since 2022, cards can be completed electronically through the electronic health record (EHR) or a novel smartphone application (app). These delivery modalities have not previously been evaluated head-to-head. We report findings from a work in progress comparing paper, EHR, and app-delivered cards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Northern New England CO-OP Practice and Community Based Research Network recruited 15 PCCs from 3 clinics to collect a total of 324 cards from unique patient visits over 4 clinical days per PCC on the topic of \\\"telehealth burden.\\\" Each clinic utilized a different data collection modality and collected approximately 100 cards. After completing the cards, we surveyed PCCs about their user experience. Our primary outcomes were PCC experience, card completion rates, and total cost of using the cards.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PCCs reported that data collection was easy and the card study did not disrupt clinical operations regardless of modality. Paper cards had the highest completion rate and were least expensive for a small-scale card study, but were most expensive when scaled due to the large amount of time to transcribe data manually. EHR was the most expensive modality for a small-scale card study, but EHR and app cards scaled better than paper.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While each modality has distinct advantages and disadvantages, all 3 card study data collection methods were acceptable to PCCs and obtained a high response rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"46-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12096375/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240199R1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240199R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:几十年来,研究人员利用纸卡研究来评估初级保健临床医生(PCC)对各种临床和实践主题的看法。从2022年起,卡可以通过电子健康记录(EHR)或新型智能手机应用程序(app)以电子方式完成。这些分娩方式以前没有被逐一评估过。我们报告了一项正在进行的比较纸质、电子病历和应用程序交付卡片的研究结果。方法:新英格兰北部CO-OP实践和基于社区的研究网络从3个诊所招募了15个PCC,从每个PCC超过4个临床日的独特患者就诊中收集了324张关于“远程医疗负担”的卡片。每个诊所使用不同的数据收集方式,收集了大约100张卡片。完成卡片后,我们调查了pc的用户体验。我们的主要结果是PCC经验、卡片完成率和使用卡片的总成本。结果:PCCs报告数据收集很容易,无论采用何种方式,卡片研究都不会干扰临床操作。纸卡具有最高的完成率,并且对于小规模卡片研究来说是最便宜的,但由于手动转录数据需要大量时间,因此在扩展时成本最高。对于小型卡片研究来说,电子病历是最昂贵的模式,但电子病历和应用程序卡片比纸张更容易缩放。结论:虽然每种方式各有优缺点,但3种卡片研究数据收集方法均为PCCs所接受,并获得了较高的回复率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application.

Background: For decades, researchers have utilized paper card studies to assess primary care clinician (PCC) perceptions across various clinical and practice topics. Since 2022, cards can be completed electronically through the electronic health record (EHR) or a novel smartphone application (app). These delivery modalities have not previously been evaluated head-to-head. We report findings from a work in progress comparing paper, EHR, and app-delivered cards.

Methods: The Northern New England CO-OP Practice and Community Based Research Network recruited 15 PCCs from 3 clinics to collect a total of 324 cards from unique patient visits over 4 clinical days per PCC on the topic of "telehealth burden." Each clinic utilized a different data collection modality and collected approximately 100 cards. After completing the cards, we surveyed PCCs about their user experience. Our primary outcomes were PCC experience, card completion rates, and total cost of using the cards.

Results: PCCs reported that data collection was easy and the card study did not disrupt clinical operations regardless of modality. Paper cards had the highest completion rate and were least expensive for a small-scale card study, but were most expensive when scaled due to the large amount of time to transcribe data manually. EHR was the most expensive modality for a small-scale card study, but EHR and app cards scaled better than paper.

Conclusions: While each modality has distinct advantages and disadvantages, all 3 card study data collection methods were acceptable to PCCs and obtained a high response rate.

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
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
×
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