患者电子健康准备和电子健康不平等的问卷调查和横断面调查的发展。

Medicine 2.0 Pub Date : 2013-09-02 eCollection Date: 2013-07-01 DOI:10.2196/med20.2559
Ray Jones
{"title":"患者电子健康准备和电子健康不平等的问卷调查和横断面调查的发展。","authors":"Ray Jones","doi":"10.2196/med20.2559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many speak of the digital divide, but variation in the opportunity of patients to use the Internet for health (patient eHealth readiness) is not a binary difference, rather a distribution influenced by personal capability, provision of services, support, and cost. Digital divisions in health have been addressed by various initiatives, but there was no comprehensive validated measure to know if they are effective that could be used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering both non-Internet-users and the range of Internet-users.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to develop and validate a self-completed questionnaire and scoring system to assess patient eHealth readiness by examining the spread of scores and eHealth inequalities. The intended use of this questionnaire and scores is in RCTs of interventions aiming to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on four factors identified from the literature, a self-completed questionnaire, using a pragmatic combination of factual and attitude questions, was drafted and piloted in three stages. This was followed by a final population-based, cross-sectional household survey of 344 people used to refine the scoring system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>the patient ehealth readiness questionnaire (perq) includes questions used to calculate four subscores: patients' perception of (1) provision, (2) their personal ability and confidence, (3) their interpersonal support, and (4) relative costs in using the Internet for health. These were combined into an overall PERQ score (0-9) which could be used in intervention studies. Reduction in standard deviation of the scores represents reduction in eHealth inequalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PERQ appears acceptable for participants in British studies. The scores produced appear valid and will enable assessment of the effectiveness of interventions to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities. Such methods need continued evolution and redevelopment for other environments. Full documentation and data have been published to allow others to develop the tool further.</p>","PeriodicalId":90648,"journal":{"name":"Medicine 2.0","volume":"2 2","pages":"e9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4084763/pdf/","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a Questionnaire and Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient eHealth Readiness and eHealth Inequalities.\",\"authors\":\"Ray Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/med20.2559\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many speak of the digital divide, but variation in the opportunity of patients to use the Internet for health (patient eHealth readiness) is not a binary difference, rather a distribution influenced by personal capability, provision of services, support, and cost. Digital divisions in health have been addressed by various initiatives, but there was no comprehensive validated measure to know if they are effective that could be used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering both non-Internet-users and the range of Internet-users.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to develop and validate a self-completed questionnaire and scoring system to assess patient eHealth readiness by examining the spread of scores and eHealth inequalities. The intended use of this questionnaire and scores is in RCTs of interventions aiming to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on four factors identified from the literature, a self-completed questionnaire, using a pragmatic combination of factual and attitude questions, was drafted and piloted in three stages. This was followed by a final population-based, cross-sectional household survey of 344 people used to refine the scoring system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>the patient ehealth readiness questionnaire (perq) includes questions used to calculate four subscores: patients' perception of (1) provision, (2) their personal ability and confidence, (3) their interpersonal support, and (4) relative costs in using the Internet for health. These were combined into an overall PERQ score (0-9) which could be used in intervention studies. Reduction in standard deviation of the scores represents reduction in eHealth inequalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PERQ appears acceptable for participants in British studies. The scores produced appear valid and will enable assessment of the effectiveness of interventions to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities. Such methods need continued evolution and redevelopment for other environments. Full documentation and data have been published to allow others to develop the tool further.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":90648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine 2.0\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"e9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4084763/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine 2.0\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.2559\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine 2.0","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.2559","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

摘要

背景:许多人谈到数字鸿沟,但患者使用互联网健康机会的变化(患者电子健康准备情况)并不是二元差异,而是受个人能力、服务提供、支持和成本影响的分布。各种举措已经解决了卫生领域的数字划分问题,但没有全面有效的措施来了解它们是否有效,可以用于涵盖非互联网用户和互联网用户范围的随机对照试验(rct)。目的:本研究的目的是开发和验证一个自我完成的问卷和评分系统,通过检查分数的传播和电子健康不平等来评估患者的电子健康准备情况。本问卷和分数的预期用途是在旨在改善患者电子卫生准备和减少电子卫生不平等的干预措施的随机对照试验中。方法:基于文献中确定的四个因素,采用实际问题和态度问题相结合的语用方式,编制自填问卷,并分三个阶段进行试点。随后是对344人进行的以人口为基础的横断面家庭调查,以完善评分系统。结果:患者电子健康准备问卷(perq)包括用于计算四个分值的问题:患者对(1)提供的感知,(2)他们的个人能力和信心,(3)他们的人际支持,以及(4)使用互联网健康的相对成本。这些被合并成一个总体PERQ评分(0-9),可用于干预研究。分数标准偏差的减少表明电子卫生不平等的减少。结论:在英国的研究中,参与者似乎可以接受PERQ。所产生的分数似乎是有效的,并将有助于评估干预措施的有效性,以改善患者的电子卫生准备和减少电子卫生不平等。这些方法需要不断发展和重新开发以适应其他环境。完整的文档和数据已经发布,以允许其他人进一步开发该工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development of a Questionnaire and Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient eHealth Readiness and eHealth Inequalities.

Background: Many speak of the digital divide, but variation in the opportunity of patients to use the Internet for health (patient eHealth readiness) is not a binary difference, rather a distribution influenced by personal capability, provision of services, support, and cost. Digital divisions in health have been addressed by various initiatives, but there was no comprehensive validated measure to know if they are effective that could be used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering both non-Internet-users and the range of Internet-users.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a self-completed questionnaire and scoring system to assess patient eHealth readiness by examining the spread of scores and eHealth inequalities. The intended use of this questionnaire and scores is in RCTs of interventions aiming to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities.

Methods: Based on four factors identified from the literature, a self-completed questionnaire, using a pragmatic combination of factual and attitude questions, was drafted and piloted in three stages. This was followed by a final population-based, cross-sectional household survey of 344 people used to refine the scoring system.

Results: the patient ehealth readiness questionnaire (perq) includes questions used to calculate four subscores: patients' perception of (1) provision, (2) their personal ability and confidence, (3) their interpersonal support, and (4) relative costs in using the Internet for health. These were combined into an overall PERQ score (0-9) which could be used in intervention studies. Reduction in standard deviation of the scores represents reduction in eHealth inequalities.

Conclusions: PERQ appears acceptable for participants in British studies. The scores produced appear valid and will enable assessment of the effectiveness of interventions to improve patient eHealth readiness and reduce eHealth inequalities. Such methods need continued evolution and redevelopment for other environments. Full documentation and data have been published to allow others to develop the tool further.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using the Internet to Support Exercise and Diet: A Stratified Norwegian Survey. Web 2.0 applications in medicine: trends and topics in the literature. Acceptance factors of mobile apps for diabetes by patients aged 50 or older: a qualitative study. The diabetes app challenge: user-led development and piloting of internet applications enabling young people with diabetes to set the focus for their diabetes consultations. Health information on the web and consumers' perspectives on health professionals' responses to information exchange.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1