↓ Skip to main content

Strategies to use tablet computers for collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Strategies to use tablet computers for collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-014-0205-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kara Schick-Makaroff, Anita Molzahn

Abstract

BackgroundMobile devices are increasingly being used for data collection in research. However, many researchers do not have experience in collecting data electronically. Hence, the purpose of this short report was to identify issues that emerged in a study that incorporated electronic capture of patient-reported outcomes in clinical settings, and strategies used to address the issues.FindingsThe issues pertaining to electronic patient-reported outcome data collection were captured qualitatively during a study on use of electronic patient-reported outcomes in two home dialysis units. Fifty-six patients completed three surveys on tablet computers, including the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and a satisfaction measure. Issues that arose throughout the research process were recorded during ethics reviews, implementation process, and data collection. Four core issues emerged including logistics of technology, security, institutional and financial support, and electronic design.ConclusionsAlthough use of mobile devices for data collection has many benefits, it also poses new challenges for researchers. Advance consideration of possible issues that emerge in the process, and strategies that can help address these issues, may prevent disruption and enhance validity of findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Psychology 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 18 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#849
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,123
of 359,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#5
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.