ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Design and evaluation of an electronic follow-up questionnaire for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-centered, measurable, and transparent care is essential for improving healthcare outcomes, particularly for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures. Electronic follow-up questionnaires offer the potential for efficient and accurate data collection, enhancing the monitoring of patient experiences and outcomes. This study aimed to design and evaluate an electronic follow-up questionnaire tailored for post-PCI patients, focusing on real-time symptom monitoring and data collection.
methodsThis developmental study was conducted in 2020 in three phases. In the first phase, a follow-up questionnaire was developed through a needs assessment and expert consultations. Each item's content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) were evaluated to ensure content validity. The finalized questionnaire elements were then reviewed and refined by a panel of ten cardiologists using the Delphi technique. In the second phase, an electronic platform was designed to host the follow-up questionnaire. The tool's effectiveness for post-PCI follow-up was evaluated in the third phase.
resultsCardiologists confirmed all items in the Delphi technique's first round, validating the follow-up questionnaire's content. A total of 41 patients undergoing PCI were enrolled in the study. The most frequently reported symptoms included issues at the catheter insertion site, chest discomfort, digestive complications, and shortness of breath. Of these patients, 21 (51.2%) utilized the electronic follow-up tool. The primary reasons for non-participation were busy schedules, forgetfulness, and perceived recovery. Among the participants, 16 (76.2%) expressed high or very high satisfaction with the tool.
conclusionThe findings suggest that this electronic follow-up questionnaire has the potential to effectively collect clinical data, support academic research, and improve the quality of post-PCI care. However, addressing barriers to patient participation and involving patients in the tool's iterative development will be critical for enhancing its adoption and impact.
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.