Cited by 22Survey Methodology and NonresponseElectronic Health Records SystemsComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies

Using Electronic Data Collection Platforms to Assess Complementary and Integrative Health Patient-Reported Outcomes: Feasibility Project

Open access
Haun, Jolie N, Alman, Amy C, Melillo, Christine, Standifer, Maisha, McMahon-Grenz, Julie, Shin, Marlena, Lapcevic, W A, Patel, Nitin +1 more·2020·JMIR Medical Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: The Veteran Administration (VA) Office of Patient-Centered Care and Cultural Transformation is invested in improving veteran health through a whole-person approach while taking advantage of the electronic resources suite available through the VA. Currently, there is no standardized process to collect and integrate electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) of complementary and integrative health (CIH) into clinical care using a web-based survey platform. This quality improvement project enrolled veterans attending CIH appointments within a VA facility and used web-based technologies to collect ePROs. Objective: This study aimed to (1) determine a practical process for collecting ePROs using patient email services and a web-based survey platform and (2) conduct analyses of survey data using repeated measures to estimate the effects of CIH on patient outcomes. Methods: In total, 100 veterans from one VA facility, comprising 11 cohorts, agreed to participate. The VA patient email services (Secure Messaging) were used to manually send links to a 16-item web-based survey stored on a secure web-based survey storage platform (Qualtrics). Each survey included questions about patient outcomes from CIH programs. Each cohort was sent survey links via Secure Messaging (SM) at 6 time points: weeks 1 through 4, week 8, and week 12. Process evaluation interviews were conducted with five primary care providers to assess barriers and facilitators to using the patient-reported outcome survey in usual care. Results: This quality improvement project demonstrated the usability of SM and Qualtrics for ePRO collection. However, SM for ePROs was labor intensive for providers. Descriptive statistics on health competence (2-item Perceived Health Competence Scale), physical and mental health (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10), and stress (4-item Perceived Stress Scale) indicated that scores did not significantly change over time. Survey response rates varied (18/100, 18.0%-42/100, 42.0%) across each of the 12 weekly survey periods. In total, 74 of 100 participants provided ≥1 survey, and 90% (66/74) were female. The majority, 62% (33/53) of participants, who reported the use of any CIH modality, reported the use of two or more unique modalities. Primary care providers highlighted specific challenges with SM and offered solutions regarding staff involvement in survey implementation. Conclusions: This quality improvement project informs our understanding of the processes currently available for using SM and web-based data platforms to collect ePROs. The study results indicate that although it is possible to use SM and web-based survey platforms for ePROs, automating scheduled administration will be necessary to reduce provider burden. The lack of significant change in ePROs may be due to standard measures taking a biomedical approach to wellness. Future work should focus on identifying ideal ePRO processes that would include standardized, whole-person measures of wellness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/15609

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Qualtrics has demonstrated validity for collection of PRO data within the VA system.

    “Qualtrics has demonstrated validity for collection of PRO data within the VA system. 66”

    From Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization (2023) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Abstract (Methods and Results; page unavailable) reports that Qualtrics was used to collect patient-reported outcomes at a VA facility and that the project demonstrated its usability for that purpose. The paper assesses feasibility and usability, not the validity of PRO data collected through Qualtrics, so the validity claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [36]Veterans Affairs 2019 2019-09-27 National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics https://www.va.gov/vetdata/Veteran_Population.asp 31851445

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haun, J. N., Alman, A. C., Melillo, C., Standifer, M., McMahon-Grenz, J., Shin, M., Lapcevic, W. A., Patel, N., & Elwy, A. R.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital (US)
  • VA Boston Healthcare System (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Haun, Jolie N
Venue
JMIR Medical Informatics
Published
2020-06-26
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
e15609
ISSN
2291-9694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3021779918
Cited by
22
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Office of Research and Development
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (#PEC 16-354)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R25DA035692)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Keywords
electronic patient-reported outcomes, complementary and integrative health, veterans, secure messaging, Qualtrics, survey response rates, perceived health competence, perceived stress, physical and mental health, barriers and facilitators, primary care providers, feasibility, holistic care, patient-centered care, Veterans Affairs health care

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