Observational studyJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Assessing usability of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in older people with and without a rare dermatologic disorder.
Observational study in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Remote usage of digital patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder and elbow pathologies: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobust and well-defined data collection is important when using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in clinical studies. Questions have been raised as to whether older age may be a barrier to data collection due to patients' unfamiliarity with electronic devices. Older adults may also have underlying health conditions that affect their ability to fill out patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on electronic devices. The aim of this observational, qualitative research study was to evaluate the usability of electronic PROMs (ePROMs) on a tablet and smartphone in older participants with and without bullous pemphigoid (BP).
methodsOlder people with and without BP were recruited in the US and France. They participated in 60-min in-person interviews, with moderators observing their completion of various tasks, including ePROMs, using a tablet and smartphone. Participants were scored on ease of task completion using a scale from 1 to 5.
resultsA total of 12 participants were recruited (≥65 years old; six each with and without BP [all participants without BP were ≥75 years old]). Most participants (83%) could easily and confidently perform most assigned tasks on both the tablet and smartphone. Although select tasks required assistance, all participants were eventually able to complete all tasks. Overall, ePROM usability did not correlate with age, sex, country, or disease state. Feedback on the general usability of both electronic devices was largely positive, and most participants (n = 11; 92%) were willing to use them. Participants were generally pleased with the training modules offered on both devices, describing the training as sufficient, straightforward, and helpful. In total, 25 usability issues were identified, which fell into three categories: incomplete instructions, unclear language, and insufficient technical/visual design. Participants provided feedback on how to enhance device usability.
conclusionsThe results suggest that older people can confidently use a tablet or smartphone for ePROM completion, particularly with appropriate training. ePROMs should be designed with the needs of the target patient population in mind. These results can be leveraged to improve clinical data recording, optimize device usability, and enhance the user experience for older people and those with functional or physical limitations.
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.