Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 1199–1207 | Cite as

Electronic diaries and questionnaires: Designing user interfaces that are easy for all patients to use

  • Mikael Palmblad
  • Brian Tiplady
Article

Abstract

We propose a set of requirements for designing handheld computer systems for electronic collection of patient diary and questionnaire data in clinical trials:(1) the system should be suitable for use by all types of patient to be included in the clinical trial programme; (2) patients must be capable of using the system and be comfortable with it after a short period of training; (3) responses should always result from an action by the user – defaults should not be taken as data; (4) all information necessary to a given question should be simultaneously available on the screen. This applies to both the questions and the response options. We present guidelines as to how these requirements may be met in practice, so that bias may be avoided both in patient selection and in the responses made; so that electronic data collection may be as effective as possible, and so that study procedures are convenient and unobtrusive for the patients.

Computers Handheld Health diaries Outcome assessment (health care) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koop A. Lessons learned from 16 years usage of mobile computers in clinical trials. In: Koop A, Bludau HB (eds), Mobile Computing in Medicine, Bonn: Köllen Druck und Verlag, 2002; 9–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference, Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 15–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chowienczyk PJ, Parkin DH, Lawson CP, Cochrane GM. Do asthma patients correctly record home spirometry measurements? Br Med J 1994; 308: 1618.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tiplady B, Crompton GK, Brackenridge D. Electronic diaries for asthma. Br Med J 1995; 310: 1469.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. Br Med J 2002; 324: 1193–1194.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fallowfield L. Quality of quality-of-life data. Lancet 1996; 348: 421–422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Microsoft Windows User Experience. Official Guidelines for User Interface Developers and Designers. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Begg A, Drummond G, Tiplady B. Assessment of postsurgical recovery after discharge using a pen computer diary. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 1101–1105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tognazzini B. The Butterfly Ballot: Anatomy of a Disaster. AskTOG website http://www.asktog.com/columns/ 042ButterflyBallot.html, January 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tseng H-M, Macleod HA, Wright P. Computer anxiety and measurement of mood change. Comput Hum Behav 1997; 13: 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tseng H-M, Tiplady B, Macleod HA, Wright P. Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer, and paper assessments of mood and performance. Br J Psychol 1998; 89: 599–610.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hahn EA, Cellal D, Dobrez DG, Shiomoto G, Taylor SG, Galvez AG, Diaz P, Valenzuela V, Chiang HL, Khan S, Hudgens SA, & Du H. Quality of life assessment for low literacy Lations: A new multimedia program for selfadministration. J Oncol Manag 2003; 12: 9–12.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demiris et al. Web design considerations for the elderly. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8: 468–472.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Svedlund J, Sjodin I, Dotevall G. GSRS-a clinical rating scale for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and peptic ulcer disease. Dig Dis Sci 1988; 33: 129–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hopper E, Cameron C-A, Tiplady B. The use of a personal digital assistant to administer visual analogue scales. J Psychopharmacol 1996; 10: A27.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jamison RN, Gracely R, Raymond S, et al. Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: A randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers. Pain 2002; 99: 341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yap AUJ, Tan KBC, Hoe JKE, Yap RHC, Jaffar J. Online computerized diagnosis of pain-related disability and psychological status of TMD patients: A pilot study. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28: 78–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Palmblad
    • 1
  • Brian Tiplady
    • 2
  1. 1.AstraZeneca R&D MölndalSweden
  2. 2.AstraZeneca UK Clinical Research GroupEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations