Thilo Khakzad, Michael Putzier, Alexander Bartschke, Rasim Atakan Poyraz, Nima Taheri
{"title":"Standardized Usage of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements is Time-Efficient and Feasible.","authors":"Thilo Khakzad, Michael Putzier, Alexander Bartschke, Rasim Atakan Poyraz, Nima Taheri","doi":"10.3390/jpm14090986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>(1) Background: Digitization is of the utmost importance in improving the transfer of medical data. In order to emphasize the need for the greater implementation of digital solutions, we compared analog PROMs (aPROMs) to electronic PROMs (ePROMs) to emphasize the time benefits for clinical everyday life. (2) Methods: This prospective, observational study compared the evaluation of SF-36 in patients between 18 and 80 years old with musculoskeletal pathologies. We performed an age-independent and age-dependent analysis. (3) Results: After the import of aPROMs data, ePROMs took significantly less time (11.97 ± 3.00 min vs. 9.41 ± 3.12 min, <i>p</i> = 0.002, d = 0.797). There were no significant differences associated with age for aPROMs (7.23 ± 2.57 min vs. 8.38 ± 2.71 min, <i>p</i> = 0.061, d = -0.607) or ePROMs (8.72 ± 2.19 min vs. 10.09 ± 3.80 min, <i>p</i> = 0.130, d = -0.436), respectively. (4) Conclusions: This study indicates that ePROMs are a time-feasible method for collecting data to guide patient-personalized treatment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":16722,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11432949/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14090986","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
(1) Background: Digitization is of the utmost importance in improving the transfer of medical data. In order to emphasize the need for the greater implementation of digital solutions, we compared analog PROMs (aPROMs) to electronic PROMs (ePROMs) to emphasize the time benefits for clinical everyday life. (2) Methods: This prospective, observational study compared the evaluation of SF-36 in patients between 18 and 80 years old with musculoskeletal pathologies. We performed an age-independent and age-dependent analysis. (3) Results: After the import of aPROMs data, ePROMs took significantly less time (11.97 ± 3.00 min vs. 9.41 ± 3.12 min, p = 0.002, d = 0.797). There were no significant differences associated with age for aPROMs (7.23 ± 2.57 min vs. 8.38 ± 2.71 min, p = 0.061, d = -0.607) or ePROMs (8.72 ± 2.19 min vs. 10.09 ± 3.80 min, p = 0.130, d = -0.436), respectively. (4) Conclusions: This study indicates that ePROMs are a time-feasible method for collecting data to guide patient-personalized treatment approaches.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM; ISSN 2075-4426) is an international, open access journal aimed at bringing all aspects of personalized medicine to one platform. JPM publishes cutting edge, innovative preclinical and translational scientific research and technologies related to personalized medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics/proteomics, systems biology). JPM recognizes that personalized medicine—the assessment of genetic, environmental and host factors that cause variability of individuals—is a challenging, transdisciplinary topic that requires discussions from a range of experts. For a comprehensive perspective of personalized medicine, JPM aims to integrate expertise from the molecular and translational sciences, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as discussions of regulatory, social, ethical and policy aspects. We provide a forum to bring together academic and clinical researchers, biotechnology, diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, health professionals, regulatory and ethical experts, and government and regulatory authorities.