...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of children's orthopaedics >An electronic patient-reported outcomes measurement system in paediatric orthopaedics
【24h】

An electronic patient-reported outcomes measurement system in paediatric orthopaedics

机译：儿科骨科病人电子报告的结局测量系统

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reliability, review differences and assess patient satisfaction of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared with paper PROMs. Methods Participants between 12 and 19 years of age with a knee-related primary complaint were randomized into two groups. Group 1 completed paper PROMs followed by electronic, while Group 2 received the electronic followed by paper. PROMs included the Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKDC), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (HSS Pedi-FABS), Tegner Activity Level Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), PedsQL Teen and a satisfaction survey. Results In all, 87 participants were enrolled with one excluded due to incomplete PROMs. Of the 86 participants, 54 were female and 32 were male with an average age of 14.3 years (12 to 18). A high degree of reliability was found when comparing the paper and electronic versions of the Pedi-IKDC (0.946; p & 0.001), HSS Pedi-FABS (0.923; p & 0.001), PedsQL Teen (0.894; p & 0.001), Tegner Activity Level Scale before injury (0.848; p & 0.001) and the Tegner Activity Level Scale after (0.930; p & 0.001). Differences were noted between the VAS scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic (5.3 versus 4.6; p & 0.001). While not significant, a trend was noted in which electronic PROMs took, overall, less time than paper (10.0 mins versus 11.2 mins; p = 0.096). Of all participants, 69.8% preferred the electronic PROMs, 67.4% felt they were faster, 93.0% stated they would complete forms at home prior to appointments and 91.8% were not concerned about the safety/privacy of electronic forms. Conclusion PROMs captured electronically were reliable when compared with paper. Electronic PROMs may be quicker, will not require manual scoring and are preferred by patients. Level of Evidence II
机译：目的本研究的目的是评估与纸质PROM相比，电子患者报告的结局指标（PROM）的可靠性，复查差异并评估患者满意度。方法将年龄在12至19岁之间，患有膝关节相关主诉的参与者随机分为两组。第一组完成了纸质PROM，随后是电子，而第二组得到了电子，其后是纸。 PROM包括儿科国际膝关节文献委员会（Pedi-IKDC），特殊外科医院（HSS）儿科功能活动简要量表（HSS Pedi-FABS），特格纳活动水平量表，视觉模拟量表（VAS），PedsQL Teen和满意度调查。结果总共招募了87位参与者，其中1位因不完整的PROM而被排除在外。在86名参与者中，女性为54名，男性为32名，平均年龄为14.3岁（12至18岁）。当比较纸张和电子版本的Pedi-IKDC（0.946; p <0.001），HSS Pedi-FABS（0.923; p <0.001），PedsQL Teen（0.894; p <0.001）时，发现高度可靠性），受伤前的Tegner活动水平量表（0.848; p <0.001）和受伤后的Tegner活动水平量表（0.930; p <0.001）。在VAS分数之间注意到差异，纸分数显着高于电子分数（5.3对4.6; p ＜0.001）。尽管不明显，但注意到了一种趋势，即电子PROM花费的时间总体上比纸更少（10.0分钟vs 11.2分钟; p = 0.096）。在所有参与者中，有69.8％的人更喜欢电子PROM，有67.4％的人认为自己更快，有93.0％的人表示会在约会之前在家填写表格，还有91.8％的人不担心电子表格的安全性/私密性。结论电子捕获的PROM与纸相比是可靠的。电子PROM可能更快，不需要人工评分，因此患者首选。证据等级II

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号