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}
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.
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.