Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39622699›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Completion Rate and Satisfaction With Online Computer-Assisted History Taking Questionnaires in Orthopedics: Multicenter Implementation Report.

Casper Craamer, Thomas Timmers, Michiel Siebelt, Rudolf Bertijn Kool, Carel Diekerhof, Jan Jacob Caron, Taco Gosens, Walter van der Weegen

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Casper CraamerResearch and Development Department, Interactive Studios, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0007-0322-6733
Thomas TimmersResearch and Development Department, Interactive Studios, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2534-5799
Michiel SiebeltDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Sports & Orthopedics Research Centre, Anna Hospital, Geldrop, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6624-7223
Rudolf Bertijn KoolIQ Health Science Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Kapittelweg 54, Nijmegen, 6525, Netherlands, 31 243615305.ORCID 0000-0003-3134-487X
Carel DiekerhofDepartment of Orthopaedics, Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0006-0744-583X
Jan Jacob CaronDepartment of Orthopaedics, Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0006-7564-7580
Taco GosensDepartment of Orthopaedics, Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5805-3138
Walter van der WeegenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Sports & Orthopedics Research Centre, Anna Hospital, Geldrop, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9389-0644

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Collecting the medical history during a first outpatient consultation plays an important role in making a diagnosis. However, it is a time-consuming process, and time is scarce in today's health care environment. The computer-assisted history taking (CAHT) systems allow patients to share their medical history electronically before their visit. Although multiple advantages of CAHT have been demonstrated, adoption in everyday medical practice remains low, which has been attributed to various barriers. Objective: This study aimed to implement a CAHT questionnaire for orthopedic patients in preparation for their first outpatient consultation and analyze its completion rate and added value. Methods: A multicenter implementation study was conducted in which all patients who were referred to the orthopedic department were invited to self-complete the CAHT questionnaire. The primary outcome of the study is the completion rate of the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included patient and physician satisfaction. These were assessed via surveys and semistructured interviews. Unlabelled: In total, 5321 patients were invited, and 4932 (92.7%) fully completed the CAHT questionnaire between April 2022 and July 2022. On average, participants (n=224) rated the easiness of completing the questionnaire at 8.0 (SD 1.9; 0-10 scale) and the satisfaction of the consult at 8.0 (SD 1.7; 0-10 scale). Satisfaction with the outpatient consultation was higher in cases where the given answers were used by the orthopedic surgeon during this consultation (median 8.3, IQR 8.0-9.1 vs median 8.0, IQR 7.0-8.5; P<.001). Physicians (n=15) scored the average added value as 7.8 (SD 1.7; 0-10 scale) and unanimously recognized increased efficiency, better patient engagement, and better medical record completeness. Implementing the patient's answers into the electronic health record was deemed necessary. Conclusions: In this study, we have shown that previously recognized barriers to implementing and adapting CAHT can now be effectively overcome. We demonstrated that almost all patients completed the CAHT questionnaire. This results in reported improvements in both the efficiency and personalization of outpatient consultations. Given the pressing need for personalized health care delivery in today's time-constrained medical environment, we recommend implementing CAHT systems in routine medical practice.

Indexed as

Medical History TakingOrthopedicsPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairescohort studycomputer-assistedcomputer-assisted history takingdigital healthdigital medical interviewhistory takingmedical recordorthopedicorthopedicsoutpatientpatient engagementsatisfaction

Identifiers

PMID39622699
PMCPMC11611801

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.