• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利用患者的智能手机验证患者报告结局的远程采集。

Validation of Remote Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Patients' Smartphones.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Surg. 2021 Mar;13(1):117-122. doi: 10.4055/cios20075. Epub 2020 Dec 21.

DOI:10.4055/cios20075
PMID:33747388
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7948045/
Abstract

BACKGROUD

The purpose of this study was to examine the between-mode equivalence and the relative efficiency of the 2 available modes of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection: a web-enabled touch screen tablet and a smartphone in a sample of patients who underwent foot and ankle orthopedic surgery.

METHODS

A total of 136 patients who visited the clinic after foot/ankle surgery participated in the study. All patients completed the PRO questionnaire set using tablets at the hospital. After 24 hours of completing the first PRO questionnaire, the patients completed the same PRO questionnaire at home using their personal smartphones. The outcomes were statistically compared, and the patients' preferences were surveyed.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficients for comparing the results of PRO measurements between the 2 modes were 0.970 for the visual analog scale, 0.952 for the Foot Function Index, 0.959 for the foot and ankle outcome scale, and 0.957 for the patient's satisfaction. Sixty-eight participants (58.6%) responded that they were able to answer the questionnaires with more honesty at home using their smartphones. Regarding the mode, 60 participants (48.1%) responded that they have no preference between the devices.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed the equivalence of the 2 modes of PRO data collection: web-enabled touch screen tablets and smartphones. Smartphones may be the preferred mode of PRO measurement, due to their easy accessibility, increased privacy, and the patients' increased honesty in answering questionnaires.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在考察两种可供选择的患者报告结局（PRO）数据采集模式（一种是带网络功能的触屏平板电脑，另一种是智能手机）之间的模式间等效性和相对效率，该研究对象为接受足踝矫形外科手术的患者。

方法

共有 136 名在足踝手术后到诊所就诊的患者参与了本研究。所有患者均在医院使用平板电脑完成 PRO 问卷集。首次 PRO 问卷完成 24 小时后，患者在家中使用个人智能手机完成相同的 PRO 问卷。对结果进行了统计学比较，并对患者的偏好进行了调查。

结果

两种模式下 PRO 测量结果的组内相关系数分别为：视觉模拟评分 0.970，足部功能指数 0.952，足踝结局评分 0.959，患者满意度 0.957。68 名参与者（58.6%）表示，他们在家中使用智能手机回答问卷时能够更加诚实地回答问题。关于模式，60 名参与者（48.1%）表示他们对两种设备没有偏好。

结论

本研究结果表明，两种 PRO 数据采集模式（带网络功能的触屏平板电脑和智能手机）等效。由于智能手机易于访问、增加了隐私性，并且患者回答问卷时更加诚实，因此可能是 PRO 测量的首选模式。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/707b/7948045/6026794c25a4/cios-13-117-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/707b/7948045/a1090924b090/cios-13-117-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/707b/7948045/6026794c25a4/cios-13-117-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/707b/7948045/a1090924b090/cios-13-117-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/707b/7948045/6026794c25a4/cios-13-117-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Validation of Remote Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Patients' Smartphones.利用患者的智能手机验证患者报告结局的远程采集。
Clin Orthop Surg. 2021 Mar;13(1):117-122. doi: 10.4055/cios20075. Epub 2020 Dec 21.
2
Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Cosmetic Surgery Clinics: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.在门诊美容外科诊所实施电子患者报告结局测量：一项探索性定性研究。
Aesthet Surg J. 2019 May 16;39(6):687-695. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy280.
3
Accuracy of acute burns diagnosis made using smartphones and tablets: a questionnaire-based study among medical experts.使用智能手机和平板电脑进行急性烧伤诊断的准确性：一项针对医学专家的问卷调查研究。
BMC Emerg Med. 2017 Dec 13;17(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s12873-017-0151-4.
4
EFAS Score - Multilingual development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) by the score committee of the European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS).EFAS评分——欧洲足踝协会（EFAS）评分委员会对患者报告结局量表（PROM）进行的多语言开发与验证。
Foot Ankle Surg. 2018 Jun;24(3):185-204. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2018.05.004. Epub 2018 May 23.
5
Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery.德国自我报告的足踝评分（SEFAS）在足踝手术患者中的信度、效度及反应度
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Oct 10;18(1):409. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1772-1.
6
Validity of five foot and ankle specific electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) instruments in patients undergoing elective orthopedic foot or ankle surgery.五种足部和踝关节特定的电子患者报告结局（ePRO）工具在接受择期矫形足部或踝关节手术患者中的有效性。
Foot Ankle Surg. 2021 Jan;27(1):52-59. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2020.02.003. Epub 2020 Feb 12.
7
Assessment of the structural validity of three foot and ankle specific patient-reported outcome measures.评估三种足部和踝关节特定的患者报告结局测量工具的结构有效性。
Foot Ankle Surg. 2020 Feb;26(2):169-174. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2019.01.009. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
8
Do Patient Sociodemographic Factors Impact the PROMIS Scores Meeting the Patient-Acceptable Symptom State at the Initial Point of Care in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Patients?患者社会人口统计学因素是否会影响在骨科足踝患者初始护理点时满足患者可接受症状状态的 PROMIS 评分？
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Nov;477(11):2555-2565. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000866.
9
Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS).自我报告的足部和踝关节评分（SEFAS）的有效性、可靠性和反应性。
Acta Orthop. 2012 Apr;83(2):197-203. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.657579. Epub 2012 Feb 8.
10
Agreement Among Paper and Electronic Modes of the EQ-5D-5L.纸质和电子模式的 EQ-5D-5L 一致性。
Patient. 2020 Aug;13(4):435-443. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00419-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Cognitive decline in older adults in the UK during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of PROTECT study data.英国老年人在 COVID-19 大流行期间和之后的认知能力下降：PROTECT 研究数据的纵向分析。
Lancet Healthy Longev. 2023 Nov;4(11):e591-e599. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00187-3.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison between an electronic version of the foot and ankle outcome score and the standard paper version: A randomized multicenter study.足踝结局评分电子版与标准纸质版的比较：一项随机多中心研究。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Oct;98(40):e17440. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017440.
2
Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Collection Systems in Orthopaedic Clinical Practice.骨科临床实践中的电子患者报告结局收集系统
JBJS Rev. 2019 Jul;7(7):e2. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.18.00154.
3
Assessment of the structural validity of three foot and ankle specific patient-reported outcome measures.
评估三种足部和踝关节特定的患者报告结局测量工具的结构有效性。
Foot Ankle Surg. 2020 Feb;26(2):169-174. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2019.01.009. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
4
Patient reported outcomes in orthopaedics.骨科患者报告的结局
J Orthop Res. 2017 Oct;35(10):2098-2108. doi: 10.1002/jor.23604. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
5
Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Foot Function Index.韩国版足部功能指数的信度与效度
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016 Jul-Aug;55(4):759-61. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2016.03.011. Epub 2016 Apr 8.
6
Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013.患者报告结局测量的电子管理与纸质管理的等效性：对2007年至2013年间开展的研究的系统评价和荟萃分析
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Oct 7;13:167. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0362-x.
7
Transcultural adaptation and testing psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS).跨文化调适及测试韩国版足部与踝关节结局评分量表（FAOS）的心理计量特性。
Clin Rheumatol. 2013 Oct;32(10):1443-50. doi: 10.1007/s10067-013-2288-1. Epub 2013 May 24.
8
Patient and physician perceptions as risk factors for oligoanalgesia: a prospective observational study of the relief of pain in the emergency department.患者和医生的认知作为低剂量镇痛的风险因素：急诊科疼痛缓解的前瞻性观察研究。
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Feb;13(2):140-6. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.08.008. Epub 2006 Jan 25.
9
A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system?足踝手术结局评定量表的荟萃分析：是否存在一个有效、可靠且灵敏的系统？
Foot Ankle Int. 2004 Aug;25(8):521-5. doi: 10.1177/107110070402500802.
10
A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales.机械视觉模拟评分法与简单数字评分法疼痛测量特征的比较
Pain. 1994 Feb;56(2):217-226. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3.