FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2795308938> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2795308938 endingPage "374" @default.
• W2795308938 startingPage "369" @default.
• W2795308938 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Aug 2018Are Electronic and Paper Questionnaires Equivalent to Assess Patients with Overactive Bladder? Cristina Palmer, Bilal Farhan, Nobel Nguyen, Lishi Zhang, Rebecca Do, Danh V. Nguyen, and Gamal Ghoniem Cristina PalmerCristina Palmer Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Bilal FarhanBilal Farhan Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Nobel NguyenNobel Nguyen More articles by this author , Lishi ZhangLishi Zhang More articles by this author , Rebecca DoRebecca Do More articles by this author , Danh V. NguyenDanh V. Nguyen More articles by this author , and Gamal GhoniemGamal Ghoniem More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.03.117AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Overactive bladder syndrome is defined as urinary urgency, usually accompanied by frequency and nocturia, with or without urgency urinary incontinence in the absence of urinary tract infection or another obvious pathological condition. Electronic questionnaires have been used in a few specialties with the hope of improving treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, they have not been widely used in the urological field. When treating overactive bladder, the main outcome is to improve patient quality of life. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether electronic questionnaires would be equally accepted as or preferred to paper questionnaires. The secondary objective was to look at the preference in relation to patient age, education and iPad® tablet familiarity. Materials and Methods: We prospectively evaluated the iList® electronic questionnaire application using a friendly iPad tablet in patients with overactive bladder who presented to the urology clinic at our institution. Each of the 80 patients who were recruited randomly completed the validated OABSS (Overactive Bladder Symptom Score) and the PPBC (Patient Perception of Bladder Condition) questionnaires in paper and electronic format on the tablet. Variables potentially associated with the outcomes of interest included demographic data, questionnaire method preference, patient response rate and iPad familiarity. We used the 2-sided Z-test to determine whether the proportion of patients who considered the tablet to be the same, better or much better than paper was significantly greater than 50%. The 2-sided chi-square test was applied to assess whether the intervention effect significantly differed among the demographic subgroups. Results: A total of 80 patients 21 to 87 years old were enrolled in the study from November 2015 to August 2016. Of the patients 53% were female and 49% were 65 years or younger. The incidence of those who considered the tablet to be the same or better than paper was 82.5% (95% CI 74.2–90.8, p <0.001). The incidence of patients who considered the tablet to be the same or better than paper ranged from 76% to 97% regardless of age, gender and education subgroup as well as in those with any familiarity with the tablet (each p <0.001). Of the 20 patients who were not familiar with the tablet 45% preferred the electronic questionnaire (p = 0.654). Conclusions: We found that the proportion of patients who considered electronic questionnaires to be equivalent to or better than paper versions was higher than those who preferred paper questionnaires regardless of age, gender or education level. References 1 : Validation of online administration of the Sexual Health Inventory for Men. J Urol2013; 189: 1456. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Prospective evaluation of continence following radical cystectomy and orthotopic urinary diversion using a validated questionnaire. J Urol2016; 196: 1685. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms of 5 countries: results of the EPID study. Eur Urol2006; 50: 1306. Google Scholar 4 : The validation of the patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC): a single-item global measure for patients with overactive bladder. Eur Urol2006; 49: 1079. Google Scholar 5 : Validation of the overactive bladder symptom score. J Urol2007; 178: 543. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health1999; 2: 113. Google Scholar 7 Ofcom: Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report: 2013. October 3, 2013. Available at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/children-parents-oct-2013. Accessed February 23, 2018. Google Scholar 8 : Computerized quality-of-life screening in a cancer pain clinic. J Palliat Care2001; 17: 46. Google Scholar 9 : On the Pulse of the Networked Society. Stockholm, Sweden: Ericcson2013. Google Scholar 10 : Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of EHR-integrated mobile patient questionnaires regarding usability and cost-efficiency. Int J Med Inform2012; 81: 303. Google Scholar 11 : In a randomized controlled trial, patients preferred electronic data collection of breast cancer risk-factor information in a mammography setting. J Clin Epidemiol2006; 59: 77. Google Scholar 12 : An investigation of the efficacy of electronic consenting interfaces of research permissions management system in a hospital setting. Int J Med Inform2013; 82: 854. Google Scholar 13 : Incorporating iPads into a preclinical curriculum: a pilot study. Med Teach2013; 35: 226. Google Scholar 14 : Rapid and reliable assessment of the contrast sensitivity function on an iPad. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2013; 54: 7266. Google Scholar 15 : Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Value Health2009; 12: 419. Google Scholar 16 : Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res1995; 4: 1. Google Scholar 17 : Long-term results of a web-based guided self-help intervention for employees with depressive symptoms: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2014; 16: e168. Google Scholar 18 : Pain-QuILT: clinical feasibility of a web-based visual pain assessment tool in adults with chronic pain. J Med Internet Res2014; 16: e127. Google Scholar 19 : Use of a web 2.0 portal to improve education and communication in young patients with families: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2013; 15: e175. Google Scholar 20 : Patient difficulty using tablet computers to screen in primary care. J Gen Intern Med2008; 23: 476. Google Scholar 21 : Automated collection of quality-of- life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol1999; 17: 998. Google Scholar 22 : Electronic eRAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data): opportunities and complexities. Clin Exp Rheumatol2016; 34: S49. Google Scholar 23 : Electronic multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ): past, present and future of a proposed single data management system for clinical care, research, quality improvement, and monitoring of long-term outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol2016; 34: S17. Google Scholar 24 : The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Clin Exp Rheumatol2009; 27: 459. Google Scholar 25 : Patient preference: a comparison of electronic patient-completed questionnaires with paper among cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)2016; 25: 334. Google Scholar 26 : Tablet, web-based, or paper questionnaires for measuring anxiety in patients suspected of breast cancer: patients' preferences and quality of collected data. J Med Internet Res2014; 16: e239. Google Scholar 27 : Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res2001; 10: 15. Google Scholar 28 : Computerized administration of health-related quality of life instruments compared to interviewer administration may reduce sample size requirements in clinical research: a pilot randomized controlled trial among rheumatology patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol2007; 25: 577. Google Scholar 29 : Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits. P T2014; 39: 356. Google Scholar © 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 200Issue 2August 2018Page: 369-374 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordspatient preferenceoveractivesurveys and questionnairesurinary bladdermicrocomputerspaperMetricsAuthor Information Cristina Palmer Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Bilal Farhan Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Nobel Nguyen More articles by this author Lishi Zhang More articles by this author Rebecca Do More articles by this author Danh V. Nguyen More articles by this author Gamal Ghoniem More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2795308938 created "2018-04-06" @default.
• W2795308938 creator A5006724094 @default.
• W2795308938 creator A5021504851 @default.
• W2795308938 creator A5021700297 @default.
• W2795308938 creator A5030877255 @default.
• W2795308938 creator A5051417049 @default.
• W2795308938 creator A5054377425 @default.
• W2795308938 creator A5055319271 @default.
• W2795308938 date "2018-08-01" @default.
• W2795308938 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2795308938 title "Are Electronic and Paper Questionnaires Equivalent to Assess Patients with Overactive Bladder?" @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1578662073 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1842259040 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1967347194 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1975912387 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1980422089 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1982799089 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1992426411 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1993929553 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W1999072716 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2005415152 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2028950772 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2030838032 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2045819496 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2066359067 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2087177394 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2109261025 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2137928281 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2149515597 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2160289137 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2165860906 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W2413711438 @default.
• W2795308938 cites W3347162 @default.
• W2795308938 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.03.117" @default.
• W2795308938 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29605443" @default.
• W2795308938 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2795308938 type Work @default.
• W2795308938 sameAs 2795308938 @default.
• W2795308938 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2795308938 countsByYear W27953089382019 @default.
• W2795308938 countsByYear W27953089382020 @default.
• W2795308938 countsByYear W27953089382021 @default.
• W2795308938 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2795308938 hasAuthorship W2795308938A5006724094 @default.
• W2795308938 hasAuthorship W2795308938A5021504851 @default.
• W2795308938 hasAuthorship W2795308938A5021700297 @default.
• W2795308938 hasAuthorship W2795308938A5030877255 @default.
• W2795308938 hasAuthorship W2795308938A5051417049 @default.
• W2795308938 hasAuthorship W2795308938A5054377425 @default.
• W2795308938 hasAuthorship W2795308938A5055319271 @default.
• W2795308938 hasBestOaLocation W27953089382 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConcept C2778941218 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConceptScore W2795308938C126894567 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConceptScore W2795308938C142724271 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConceptScore W2795308938C19527891 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConceptScore W2795308938C204787440 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConceptScore W2795308938C2778941218 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConceptScore W2795308938C29456083 @default.
• W2795308938 hasConceptScore W2795308938C71924100 @default.
• W2795308938 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2795308938 hasLocation W27953089381 @default.
• W2795308938 hasLocation W27953089382 @default.
• W2795308938 hasLocation W27953089383 @default.
• W2795308938 hasOpenAccess W2795308938 @default.
• W2795308938 hasPrimaryLocation W27953089381 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2003638941 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2018940414 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2322824728 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2392413698 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2743658275 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2784905695 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2795343890 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W2965204637 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W3108460588 @default.
• W2795308938 hasRelatedWork W4224326608 @default.
• W2795308938 hasVolume "200" @default.
• W2795308938 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2795308938 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2795308938 magId "2795308938" @default.
• W2795308938 workType "article" @default.