Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 25, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 6609
© 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abernethy, A. P. Articles by Lyerly, H. K. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Abernethy, A. P. Articles by Lyerly, H. K.

Abstract

E-tablets to collect research-quality patient-reported data

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC

6609

Introduction: Programmed wireless notebook computers (e-tablets) can collect review of systems (ROS) data at point of care. Patients complete surveys in the clinic waiting area; a report is generated for the subsequent clinical visit. Are e-tablets a feasible, acceptable method for collecting data directly from patients in an academic cancer clinic? Can they reliably collect other survey data? Methods: We used PACE e-tablets (SOS, Inc.) to administer Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-G, FACT-B, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), FACIT-Fatigue, and Self Efficacy instruments, in addition to the PACE Patient Care Monitor (PCM) ROS survey. Participants were 66 breast cancer patients in Duke Breast Cancer Clinic. At 4 visits in 6 months, participants completed all electronic and 1 paper survey. Subscales were compared using paired t-tests. Patients completed an electronic survey of satisfaction with PCM. Results: Mean age, 55 (SD 12); 77% Caucasian; 49% no college degree; 68% married; 61% metastatic cancer. Patients strongly supported e-tablets: easy to read (94%), easy to respond to questions (98%), weight of computer comfortable (87%). Satisfaction increased over time: helpful for reporting symptoms (75–88%), would recommend PCM to other patients (87–94%). 75% indicated PCM helped them remember symptoms to discuss with the clinician. Responses to paper and electronic surveys were nearly identical for 3 of 4 FACT-G, and all FACT-B, MDASI, and FACIT-Fatigue subscales (all p>0.31). Responses on FACT-G Social Wellbeing and 4 Self Efficacy subscales differed from paper to electronic (all p<0.006, all electronic scores poorer). Conclusions: Patients are satisfied with e-tablets. E- tablets furnish comparable data to those collected by paper on nearly all scales tested. PCM offers a valid, feasible method for collecting research-quality, clinically relevant data from patients in outpatient academic oncology.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract presentation from the 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting