Patient Perspective in the Development of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePROs) in Seizure Disorders: A Patient-Centric Approach

被引:6
|
作者
Khan, Anzalee [1 ,2 ]
Peechatka, Alyssa [3 ]
Dias, Nadeeka R. [3 ]
Lima, Viviane [3 ]
Seddo, Mary [2 ]
Inja, Ayla [2 ]
Dallabrida, Susan M. [4 ]
机构
[1] Nathan S Kline Inst Psychiat Res, Orangeburg, NY 10962 USA
[2] Manhattan Psychiat Ctr, New York, NY USA
[3] eRes Technol Inc, Boston, MA USA
[4] Oracle, Burlington, MA USA
来源
关键词
epilepsy; technology assisted counseling; TAC; patient perception; electronic outcomes; PRO; RECOMMENDATIONS; EQUIVALENCE;
D O I
10.2147/PPA.S222642
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) emphasizes the patient perspective and input to inform the research process with the aim to improve the quality of care. Given PCOR's emphasis on the patient perspective, methods to incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have been implemented successfully in many populations; however, many of these measurements do not incorporate patient perspective in the development of ePROs. For epilepsy and seizure disorders, user perspectives are key to developing measurements that capture real-time data, as seizures are not timed events; therefore, patients can wait days or even weeks and then try to recall their experience which can lead to variations in recall. ePRO can provide the necessary assurance that data were entered by the patient at the time the episode occurs. The aim of the present study was to assess patient perceptions of completing ePROs, expectations of ePRO devices for PCOR and on-site clinical visit in order to guide the development of successful ePRO deployment in seizure-related disorders. Methods: This study used a naturalistic cohort design. A sample of 713 persons completed an online survey which consisted of 11 situational questions. Of the 713 individuals, results from 640 participants were included. Results were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Most participants (71.9%) were able to accurately identify a seizure and 86.3% of participants felt it would be beneficial to have a short training on seizure symptoms prior to completing a daily seizure diary, and seizures should be reasonably reported within 10 mins (n = 426, 66.6%). Participants endorsed that repetitive movements and loss of consciousness as the most predominant symptoms they would look for in an ePRO. A majority of participants, 67.0% indicated that they regularly use accessibility features on using smartphones and tablets, and 38.6% indicated they would like to see more than one item per screen but only if they are related and to see all text in a larger size with scrolling features using fingers (n = 246; 38.4%). Conclusion: This study has demonstrated the importance of developing ePROs that satisfy the needs of the participants and caregivers without compromising the scientific and clinical aspects of the disease construct. Developing tools using participant needs, observations, characteristics and input is essential to putting the participant perspective in patient-centered outcomes research.
引用
收藏
页码:13 / 21
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Promoting Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Quality Measurement
    Sandhu, Sahil
    Rotenstein, Lisa S.
    LeBlanc, Thomas W.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2024, 39 (10) : 1917 - 1919
  • [42] Contrast Administration in CT: A Patient-Centric Approach
    Kalra, Mannudeep K.
    Becker, Hans-Christoph
    Enterline, David S.
    Lowry, Carolyn R.
    Molvin, Lior Z.
    Singh, Ramandeep
    Rybicki, Frank J.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 16 (03) : 295 - 301
  • [43] Aesthetic Otoplasty: Principles, Techniques and an Integrated Approach to Patient-Centric Outcomes
    Ordon, Andrew
    Wolfswinkel, Erik
    Shauly, Orr
    Gould, Daniel J.
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2019, 43 (05) : 1214 - 1225
  • [44] Aesthetic Otoplasty: Principles, Techniques and an Integrated Approach to Patient-Centric Outcomes
    Andrew Ordon
    Erik Wolfswinkel
    Orr Shauly
    Daniel J. Gould
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2019, 43 : 1214 - 1225
  • [45] Maintaining primacy of the patient perspective in the development of patient-centered patient reported outcomes
    Tractenberg, Rochelle E.
    Garver, Amanda
    Ljungberg, Inger H.
    Schladen, Manon M.
    Groah, Suzanne L.
    PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (03):
  • [46] Tolerance and Acceptability of Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePROs) in Psycho-Oncology Settings
    Fleagle, Elizabeth
    Makela, Kimberly
    Baurle, Erin
    Tevis, Sarah
    PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2024, 33
  • [47] PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES: AN INTRODUCTION
    Apfelbacher, Christian
    Nelson, Pauline
    ACTA DERMATO-VENEREOLOGICA, 2017, 97 (08) : 1023 - 1024
  • [48] Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dermatology
    Kirby, Joslyn S.
    JAMA DERMATOLOGY, 2022, 158 (01) : 97 - 98
  • [49] Patient-reported outcomes in endocrinology
    De Sanso, S.
    Guidi, J.
    Fava, G. A.
    Sonino, N.
    PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS, 2015, 84 : 19 - 19
  • [50] Patient-Reported Outcomes in Orthopaedics
    Christensen, Daniel L.
    Dickens, Jonathan F.
    Freedman, Brett
    Mauntel, Timothy
    Owens, Brett D.
    Potter, Benjamin K.
    Provencher, Matthew
    Tokish, John M.
    Waterman, Brian R.
    Antosh, Ivan
    Bellamy, Jaime
    Cameron, Kenneth L.
    Cook, Karon F.
    Eckel, Tobin T.
    Eichinger, Josef K.
    Garcia, EStephan J.
    Helgeson, Melvin D.
    Joyner, Patrick W.
    Kang, Daniel G.
    Kilcoyne, Kelly G.
    Krueger, Chad A.
    LeClere, Lance E.
    Li, Xinning
    Martin, Kevin D.
    McCallum, Jeremy R.
    McDonald, Lucas S.
    Ortiz, Dionisio, III
    Pallis, Mark P.
    Parada, Stephen A.
    Patzkowski, Jeanne C.
    Posner, Matthew A.
    Rivera, Jessica C.
    Robins, R. Judd
    Rothrock, Nan
    Schmitz, Matthew R.
    Slabaugh, Mark
    Song, Daniel J.
    Stinner, Daniel J.
    Tintle, Scott M.
    Tucker, Christopher J.
    Waltz, Robert A.
    Wilson, Kevin
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2018, 100 (05): : 436 - 442