ArticleMedical care2019
Adapting Patient Experience Data Collection Processes for Lower Literacy Patient Populations Using Tablets at the Point of Care.
Article in Medical care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of use of ambient listening technology on patient-reported communication and satisfaction ratings.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Enhancing Participation in Alzheimer's Research: A Comparative Study of Community Health Worker -Led and Digital Recruitment Strategies in Hispanic/Latino Communities.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Does an "EZ" Survey Improve the Data Quality of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPSJournal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity of an instrument to assess pediatric inpatients' experience of care in China.Translational pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient experience surveys are widely used to capture the patient-reported quality of care and are increasingly being used for formal reporting purposes. There is evidence that certain patient subgroups are less likely to respond to traditional CAHPS surveys. As patient-facing technologies become more common, it is important to examine whether tablet-based patient experience surveys have the potential to promote responses from more diverse populations.
objectivesTo develop, gain perspectives about, and pilot an English and Spanish low-literacy adaptation of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems Clinician & Group Survey (CG-CAHPS) administered on a tablet device at the point of care. RESEARCH
designCognitive testing and evaluation of a quality improvement pilot comparing a tablet-based adaptation and traditional paper-based versions of the CG-CAHPS survey. SUBJECTS: English-speaking and Spanish-speaking patients receiving primary care in an urban community clinic. MEASURES: To compare the acceptability of low-literacy tablet-based and traditional paper-based patient experience surveys, we examined the concordance of responses between survey modes and preferences for modality, as well as perspectives on usability and reporting care experiences. We examined demographic differences in responses to tablet-based versus mailed surveys from a quality improvement pilot.
resultsThe majority of cognitive interview participants preferred a low-literacy, tablet-based survey over a paper-based survey with traditional wording. In a quality improvement pilot comparing tablet-based administration at the point of care versus mailed surveys, respondents to the tablet-based survey were more likely to be younger and Latino.
conclusionsIf designed with patient input, tablet-based surveys have the potential to improve the collection of patient experience data among diverse populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.