Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30820340›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

Electronic capturing of patient-reported outcome measures on a touchscreen computer in clinical diabetes practice (the DiaPROM trial): a feasibility study.

Ingvild Hernar, Marit Graue, David Richards, Ragnhild B Strandberg, Roy M Nilsen, Grethe S Tell, Anne Haugstvedt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ingvild Hernar1Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7185-6234
Marit Graue1Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
David Richards1Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
Ragnhild B Strandberg1Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
Roy M Nilsen1Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
Grethe S Tell2Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Anne Haugstvedt1Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiving with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is demanding, and emotional problems may impair ability for diabetes self-management. Thus, diabetes guidelines recommend regular assessment of such problems. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess diabetes-related distress and psychological well-being is considered useful. It has been proposed that future work should examine the use of PROMs to support the care of individual patients and improve the quality of health services. To our knowledge, the use of PROMs has not been systematically evaluated in diabetes care services in Norway. Electronically captured PROMs can be directly incorporated into electronic patient records. Thus, the study's overall aim was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of capturing PROMs electronically on a touchscreen computer in clinical diabetes practice.

methodsAdults with T1D age ≥ 40 years completed PROMs on a touchscreen computer at Haukeland University Hospital's diabetes outpatient clinic. We included 46 items related to diabetes-related distress, self-perceived diabetes competence, awareness of hypoglycaemia, occurrence of hyperglycaemia, hypoglycaemia and fluctuating glucose levels, routines for glucose monitoring, general well-being and health-related quality of life. Participants subsequently completed a paper-based questionnaire regarding comprehension and relevance of the PROMs, acceptance of the number of items and willingness to complete electronic PROMs annually. We wrote field notes in the outpatient clinic based on observations and comments from the invited participants.

resultsDuring spring 2017, 69 participants (50.7% men), age 40 to 74 years, were recruited. Generally, the touchscreen computer functioned well technically. Median time spent completing the PROMs was 8 min 19 s. Twenty-nine (42.0%) participants completed the PROMs without missing items, with an 81.4% average instrument completion rate. Participants reported that the PROMs were comprehensible (

conclusionsCapturing PROMs on a touchscreen computer in an outpatient clinic was technically and practically feasible. The participants found the PROMs to be relevant and acceptable with a manageable number of items, and reported willingness to complete PROMs annually.

Indexed as

Diabetes practiceDiabetes-related distressElectronic data collectionFeasibilityPatient-reported outcome measuresPsychological well-beingRoutine assessmentType 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID30820340
PMCPMC6381687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.