CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Technology Use by Older AdultsSurvey Methodology and NonresponseElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient Difficulty Using Tablet Computers to Screen in Primary Care

Open access
Hess, Rachel, Santucci, Aimee, McTigue, Kathleen, Fischer, Gary, Kapoor, Wishwa·2008·Journal of General Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s11606-007-0500-1PMC PMC2359506
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background Patient-administered computerized questionnaires represent a novel tool to assist primary care physicians in the delivery of preventive health care. Objective The aim of this study was to assess patient-reported ease of use with a self-administered tablet computer-based questionnaire in routine clinical care. Design All patients seen in a university-based primary care practice were asked to provide routine screening information using a touch-screen tablet computer-based questionnaire. Patients reported difficulty using the tablet computer after completion of their first questionnaire. Patients Ten thousand nine hundred ninety-nine patients completed the questionnaire between January 2004 and January 2006. Measurements We calculated rates of reporting difficulty (no difficulty, some difficulty, or a lot of difficulty) using the tablet computers based on patient age, sex, race, educational attainment, marital status, and number of comorbid medical conditions. We constructed multivariable ordered logistic models to identify predictors of increased self-reported difficulty using the computer. Results The majority of patients (84%) reported no difficulty using the tablet computers to complete the questionnaire, with only 3% reporting a lot of difficulty. Significant predictors of reporting more difficulty included increasing age [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.05)]; Asian race (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8-2.9); African American race (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6); less than a high school education (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.6-3.4); and the presence of comorbid medical conditions (1-2: OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5; > or =3: OR 1.7 95% CI 1.5-2.1). Conclusions The majority of primary care patients reported no difficulty using a self-administered tablet computer-based questionnaire. While computerized questionnaires present opportunities to collect routine screening information from patients, attention must be paid to vulnerable groups.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-007-0500-1

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Bachman JW. The patient-computer interview: a neglected tool that can aid the clinician. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78(1):67–78. · DOI
  2. McGuire M, Bakst K, Fairbanks L, et al. Cognitive, mood, and functional evaluations using touchscreen technologies. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2000;188(12):813–7. · DOI
  3. Jette AM, Davies A, Cleary PD, et al. The functional status questionnaire: reliability and validity when used in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1(3):143–9. · DOI
  4. Feigelson ME, Dwight SA. Can asking questions by computer improve the candidness of responding? A meta-analytic perspective. Consult Psychol J: Prac Res. 2000;52(4):248–55. · DOI
  5. US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(5):355–61. · DOI
  6. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for suicide risk: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(10):820–1. · DOI
  7. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for family and intimate partner violence: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(5):382–6. · DOI
  8. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for thyroid disease: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(2):125–7. · DOI
  9. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):212–4. · DOI
  10. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):129–31. · DOI
  11. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for depression: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(10):760–4. · DOI
  12. Tsui JI, Dodson K, Jacobson TA. Cardiovascular disease prevention counseling in residency: resident and attending physician attitudes and practices. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004;96(8):1080–3. 1088–91.
  13. Melin I, Karlstrom B, Berglund L, Zamfir M, Rossner S. Education and supervision of health care professionals to initiate, implement and improve management of obesity. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;58(2):127–36. · DOI
  14. Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Gilbert T, Lowe HJ, Kapoor WN, Schulberg HC. The electronic medical record. A randomized trial of its impact on primary care physicians’ initial management of major depression [corrected]. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(2):189–97. · DOI
  15. Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Lowe HJ, Gilbert T, Kapoor WN, Schulberg HC. A randomized trial using computerized decision support to improve treatment of major depression in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(7):493–503. · DOI
  16. Bock B, Niaura , Fontes A, Bock F. Acceptability of computer assessments among ethnically diverse, low-income smokers. Am J Health Promot. 1999;13(5):299–304. · DOI
  17. Hess , Matthews K, McNeil M, Chang CCH, Kapoor W, Bryce C. Health services research in the privacy age. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(11):1045–9. · DOI
  18. Dickinson A, Gregor P. Designing computer systems for and with older users. Behav Inf Technol. 2007;26(4):273–4. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Hawthorn D. Interface design and engagement with older people. Behav Inf Technol. 2007;26(4):333–41. · DOI
  20. Dickinson A, Arnott J, Prior S. Methods for human–computer interaction research with older people. Behav Inf Technol. 2007;26(4):343–52. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Larkin-Lieffers PA. The older adult and public library computer technology: a pilot study in a Canadian setting. Libri. 2000;50:225–34. · DOI
  22. Main D, Quintela J, Araya-Guerra , Holcomb S, Pace W. Exploring patient reactions to pen-tablet computers: a report from CaReNet. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):421–4. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hess, R., Santucci, A., McTigue, K., Fischer, G., & Kapoor, W.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Hess, Rachel
ORCID
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-03-29
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
476-480
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
DOI
10.1007/s11606-007-0500-1
PMC
PMC2359506
OpenAlex
W1993929553
Cited by
79
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
13.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000005)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG024254, K23AG024254)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K08DK067192, DK067192)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
tablet computers, computerized questionnaire, primary care screening, preventive medicine, self-administered questionnaire, touch screen technology, vulnerable populations, racial disparities, educational attainment, comorbidities
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Computers, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Group Practice, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Medical History Taking, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, User-Computer Interface, Computers, Handheld

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review