Electronic and paper mode of data capture when assessing patient-reported outcomes in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Automating Patient-reported Data Collection: Does it Work?

OBJECTIVE

There are several electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) vendors that are being used at institutions to automate data collection. However, there is little known about their success in collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and it is unknown which patients are more likely to complete these surveys. In this study, we assessed rates of PRO completion, as well as determined factors that contributed to the completion of baseline and follow-up surveys.

METHODS

We queried our ePRO platform to assess rates of completion for baseline and follow-up surveys for patients from October 2019 to June 2022. All baseline surveys were administered before pediatric orthopaedic procedures, and follow-up surveys were sent at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery to patients with baseline data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess differences in patients who did and did not complete surveys.

RESULTS

This study included 1313 patients during the study period. Baseline surveys were completed by 66% of the cohort (n = 873 patients). There was a significant difference in race/ethnicity and language spoken in the patients who did and did not complete baseline surveys ( P < 0.01) with lower rates of completion in African American, Hispanic, and Spanish-speaking patients. At least one follow-up was obtained for 68% of patients with baseline surveys (n = 597 patients). There were significant differences in completion rates based on race/ethnicity ( P = 0.03) and language spoken ( P = 0.01). There were lower rates of baseline completion for patients with government insurance in our multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 0.6, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Baseline and follow-up PRO data can be obtained from the majority of patients using automated ePRO platforms. However, additional focus is needed on collecting data from traditionally underrepresented patient groups to better understand outcomes in these patient populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-retrospective cohort study.

Comparing Single-Page, Multipage, and Conversational Digital Forms in Health Care: Usability Study

Background

Even in the era of digital technology, several hospitals still rely on paper-based forms for data entry for patient admission, triage, drug prescriptions, and procedures. Paper-based forms can be quick and convenient to complete but often at the expense of data quality, completeness, sustainability, and automated data analytics. Digital forms can improve data quality by assisting the user when deciding on the appropriate response to certain data inputs (eg, classifying symptoms). Greater data quality via digital form completion not only helps with auditing, service improvement, and patient record keeping but also helps with novel data science and machine learning research. Although digital forms are becoming more prevalent in health care, there is a lack of empirical best practices and guidelines for their design. The study-based hospital had a definite plan to abolish the paper form; hence, it was not necessary to compare the digital forms with the paper form.

Objective

This study aims to assess the usability of three different interactive forms: a single-page digital form (in which all data input is required on one web page), a multipage digital form, and a conversational digital form (a chatbot).

Methods

The three digital forms were developed as candidates to replace the current paper-based form used to record patient referrals to an interventional cardiology department (Cath-Lab) at Altnagelvin Hospital. We recorded usability data in a counterbalanced usability test (60 usability tests: 20 subjects×3 form usability tests). The usability data included task completion times, System Usability Scale (SUS) scores, User Experience Questionnaire data, and data from a postexperiment questionnaire.

Results

We found that the single-page form outperformed the other two digital forms in almost all usability metrics. The mean SUS score for the single-page form was 76 (SD 15.8; P=.01) when compared with the multipage form, which had a mean score of 67 (SD 17), and the conversational form attained the lowest scores in usability testing and was the least preferred choice of users, with a mean score of 57 (SD 24). An SUS score of >68 was considered above average. The single-page form achieved the least task completion time compared with the other two digital form styles.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the digital single-page form outperformed the other two forms in almost all usability metrics; it had the least task completion time compared with those of the other two digital forms. Moreover, on answering the open-ended question from the final customized postexperiment questionnaire, the single-page form was the preferred choice.