Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) in Rheumatology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Rheumatic Diseases

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in rheumatology. Advantages and opportunities of the instruments have been summarized in other chapters of this book. This chapter outlines the benefits and chances added by electronic PROMs and includes a synopsis on ePROMs’ evaluation studies. Electronic assessments of PROMs bring the patients’ perspective into clinical routine care without delay. Issues that need to be taken into account when applying ePROMs are elucidated. The adoption of new applications on mobile devices and their connection to existing patient documentation systems might lead to sustained documentation of the key outcome measures and thus introduce new perspectives for an optimized care process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sargious A, Lee SJ. Remote collection of questionnaires. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32:168–72.

    Google Scholar 

  2. El Miedany Y. Adopting patient-centered care in standard practice: PROMs moving toward disease-specific era. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32:S40–6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Roy J. Why do we need new patient-reported outcomes? J Hand Ther. 2015;28:336. doi:10.1016/j.jht.2015.01.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ayis S, Wellwood I, Rudd AG, McKevitt C, Parkin D, Wolfe CDA, et al. Variations in Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and survival 1 year after stroke: five European population-based registers. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007101. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007101.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jensen RE, Rothrock NE, DeWitt EM, Spiegel B, Tucker CA, Crane HM, et al. The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Med Care. 2015;53:153–9. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;309:814–22. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.879.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. El Miedany Y. PROMs in inflammatory arthritis: moving from static to dynamic. Clin Rheumatol. 2013;32:735–42. doi:10.1007/s10067-013-2228-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Snyder CF, Aaronson NK. Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet. 2009;374:369–70. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61400-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:179–93. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eriksson JK, Askling J, Arkema EV. The Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register: optimisation of rheumatic disease assessments using register-enriched data. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32:S147–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Greene ME, Rolfson O, Gordon M, Garellick G, Nemes S. Standard Comorbidity Measures Do Not Predict Patient-reported Outcomes 1 Year After Total Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3370–9. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4195-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hetland ML. DANBIO—powerful research database and electronic patient record. Rheumatology. 2011;50:69–77. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keq309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deutsch A, Smith L, Gage B, Kelleher C, Garfinkel D. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) workshop # 1 July 30-31, 2012: workshop summary [Internet]. 2012. https://www.qualityforum.org/Calendar/2012/07/Patient-Reported_Outcomes--Workshop_-_2012-07-30.aspx. Accessed 24 Sep 2015.

  14. Snyder CF, Jensen R, Courtin SO, Wu AW. PatientViewpoint: a website for patient-reported outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:793–800. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9497-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. European Medical Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CMHP). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/139391/2004; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims [Internet]. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 21 Sep 2015.

  17. Locklear T, Weinfurt KP, Abernethy A, Flynn KE, Riley W, Johnson LL. Patient-reported outcome [Internet]. http://sites.duke.edu/rethinkingclinicaltrials/patient-reported-outcomes/. Accessed 21 Sep 2015.

  18. Wilson AS, Kitas GD, Carruthers DM, Reay C, Skan J, Harris S, et al. Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology. 2002;41:268–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith SK, Rowe K, Abernethy AP. Use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement system to improve distress management in oncology. Palliat Support Care. 2014;12:69–73. doi:10.1017/S1478951513000345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson J, Caplan L, Yazdany J, Robbins ML, Neogi T, Michaud K, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures: American College of Rheumatology recommendations for use in clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64:640–7. doi:10.1002/acr.21649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Der Wees PJ, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MW, Ayanian JZ, Black N, Westert GP, Schneider EC. Integrating the use of patient-reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Q. 2014;92:754–75. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12091.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gilek-Seibert K, Prescott K, Kazi S. Outcome assessments in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2013;15:370. doi:10.1007/s11926-013-0370-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schoels M, Aletaha D, Smolen JS, Bijlsma JW, Burmester G, Breedveld FC, et al. Follow-up standards and treatment targets in rheumatoid arthritis: results of a questionnaire at the EULAR 2008. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:575–8. doi:10.1136/ard.2009.108472.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cush JJ, Curtis JR. Treat-to-target (T2T) and measuring outcomes in RA care: a 2014 longitudinal survey of US rheumatologists. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(11 Suppl):S48.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ovretveit J, Keller C, Hvitfeldt Forsberg H, Essen A, Lindblad S, Brommels M. Continuous innovation: developing and using a clinical database with new technology for patient-centred care—the case of the Swedish quality register for arthritis. International J Qual Health Care. 2013;25:118–24. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzt002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tran V, Harrington M, Montori VM, Barnes C, Wicks P, Ravaud P. Adaptation and validation of the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) in English using an internet platform. BMC Med. 2014;12:109. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-12-109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Rothman M, Gnanaskathy A, Wicks P, Papadopoulos EJ. Can we use social media to support content validity of patient-reported outcome instruments in medical product development? Value Health. 2015;18:1–4. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:336–47. doi:10.3322/caac.21150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chung AE, Basch EM. Incorporating the patient’s voice into electronic health records through patient-reported outcomes as the “review of systems”. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22:914–6. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocu007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. McCall J. Mobile health (mHealth) and PROs [Internet]. 2014. http://sites.duke.edu/rethinkingclinicaltrials/2014/01/03/mhealth-presentations/. Accessed 21 Sep 2015.

  32. Greenwood MC. Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2006;45:66–71. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kei100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Richter JG, Becker A, Koch T, Nixdorf M, Willers R, Monser R, et al. Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:1739–41. doi:10.1136/ard.2008.090209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Strong LE. The past, present, and future of patient-reported outcomes in oncology. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2015:e616–20.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Buxton J, White M, Osoba D. Patients’ experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:513–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ryan JM, Corry JR, Attewell R, Smithson MJ. A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sudano JJ, Kofford B, Wotman S. Using tablet PC’s in dental practice research: technology, cost savings, and direct data entry “on the go”. J Public Health Dent. 2005;65:244–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Snyder CF, Wu AW, Miller RS, Jensen RE, Bantug ET, Wolff AC. The role of informatics in promoting patient-centered care. Cancer J. 2011;17:211–8. doi:10.1097/PPO.0b013e318225ff89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Desai SP, Yazdany J. Quality measurement and improvement in rheumatology: rheumatoid arthritis as a case study. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:3649–60. doi:10.1002/art.30605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Schaeren S, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Knupp M, Dick W, Huber JF, Theiler R. A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:201–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, Basch E, Potosky AL, Roberts AC, et al. Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2013;10:e215. doi:10.1200/JOP.2013.001067.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Glasgow RE, Kaplan RM, Ockene JK, Fisher EB, Emmons KM. Patient-reported measures of psychosocial issues and health behavior should be added to electronic health records. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:497–504. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1295.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:182–99. doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00320-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Palmer D. Assessment of the utility of visual feedback in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis patients: a pilot study. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:3061–8. doi:10.1007/s00296-011-2098-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Newman ED, Lerch V, Billet J, Berger A, Kirchner HL. Improving the quality of care of patients with rheumatic disease using patient-centric Electronic Redesign Software. Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67:546–53. doi:10.1002/acr.22479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kirwan JR, Ahlmén M, de Wit M, Heiberg T, Hehir M, Hewlett S, et al. Progress since OMERACT 6 on including patient perspective in rheumatoid arthritis outcome assessment. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:2246–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Campbell N, Ali F, Finlay AY, Salek SS. Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1949–61. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-0937-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bent H, Ratzlaff CR, Goligher EC, Kopec JA, Gillies JH. Computer-administered bath ankylosing spondylitis and Quebec Scale outcome questionnaires for low back pain: agreement with traditional paper format. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:669–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Koevoets R, de Glas NA, Le Bourlout C, Huizinga TWJ, Allaart CF, Dougados M, et al. Autonomous online health assessment questionnaire registry in daily clinical practice. Rheumatology. 2013;52:883–7. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kes389.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008;11:322–33. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, Hughes RA, Carr M, Hehir M, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis-progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:2250–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. 2009;12:419–29. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Amarasingham R, Plantinga L, Diener-West M, Gaskin DJ, Powe NR. Clinical information technologies and inpatient outcomes: a multiple hospital study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:108–14. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hartzler A, McCarty CA, Rasmussen LV, Williams MS, Brilliant M, Bowton EA, et al. Stakeholder engagement: a key component of integrating genomic information into electronic health records. Genet Med. 2013;15:792–801. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie. EDV Dokumentation online [Internet]. http://dgrh.de/rheumaedv.html. Accessed 20 Sep 2015.

  56. Schacher et al. Projektförderung der AGRZ: Einsatz von IT-Dokumentationssystemen in der rheumatologischen Patientenversorgung—Anwendungserprobung und Usability-Vergleich der Softwaresysteme Ardis, Documed.rh und Rheumadok. Z Rheumatol. 2009:68(Suppl 1):34.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Azevedo AR, de Sousa HM, Monteiro JA, Lima AR. Future perspectives of Smartphone applications for rheumatic diseases self-management. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35:419–31. doi:10.1007/s00296-014-3117-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Dennison L, Morrison L, Conway G, Yardley L. Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e86. doi:10.2196/jmir.2583.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Donker T, Petrie K, Proudfoot J, Clarke J, Birch M, Christensen H. Smartphones for smarter delivery of mental health programs: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e247. doi:10.2196/jmir.2791.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Martínez-Pérez B, de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M. Mobile health applications for the most prevalent conditions by the World Health Organization: review and analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e120. doi:10.2196/jmir.2600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Heiberg T, Kvien TK, Dale Ø, Mowinckel P, Aanerud GJ, Songe-Møller AB, et al. Daily health status registration (patient diary) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison between personal digital assistant and paper-pencil format. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:454–60. doi:10.1002/art.22613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Luckmann R, Vidal A. Design of a handheld electronic pain, treatment and activity diary. J Biomed Inform. 2010;43:S32. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2010.05.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Torous J, Staples P, Shanahan M, Lin C, Peck P, Keshavan M, et al. Utilizing a Personal Smartphone Custom App to assess the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder. JMIR Mental Health. 2015;2:e8. doi:10.2196/mental.3889.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Hufford MR, Shields AL. Electronic diaries: applications and what works in the field. Appl Clin Trials. 2002;11(4):46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ. 2002;324:1193–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Gvozdenović E, Koevoets R, Wolterbeek R, van der Heijde D, Huizinga TW, Allaart CF, et al. Assessment of global disease activity in RA patients monitored in the METEOR database: the patient‘s versus the rheumatologist‘s opinion. Clin Rheumatol. 2014;33:461–6. doi:10.1007/s10067-013-2390-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Koevoets R, de Glas NA, Le Bourlout C, Huizinga TW, Allaart CF, Dougados M, et al. Autonomous online health assessment questionnaire registry in daily clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52:883–7. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kes389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Richter J, Muth T, Becker A, Koch T, Schneider M. Online data aquisition of medical outcome Studies Short Form (SF36) in female Systemic Lupus Erythematodes (SLE) patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68 (Suppl 3):356.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Richter J, Muth T, Becker A, Koch T, Schneider M. Is online data aquisition of medical outcome studies Short Form (SF36) feasible in female patients with Rheumatois Arthritis (RA) and delivering equivalent data compared to paper-based data acquisition? Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(Suppl3):650.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Walter MJ, Mohd Din SH, Hazes JM, Lesaffre E, Barendregt PJ, Luime JJ. Is tightly controlled disease activity possible with online patient-reported outcomes? J Rheumatol. 2014;41:640–7. doi:10.3899/jrheum.130174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, Bonomy A, Schoenfeld P. A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39:181–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D, et al. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:998–1007.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kvien TK. Performance of health status measures with a pen based personal digital assistant. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:1480–4. doi:10.1136/ard.2004.030437.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Thumboo J, Wee H, Cheung Y, Machin D, Luo N, Feeny D, et al. Computerized administration of health-related quality of life instruments compared to interviewer administration may reduce sample size requirements in clinical research: a pilot randomized controlled trial among rheumatology patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2007;25:577–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Schefte DB, Hetland ML. An open-source, self-explanatory touch screen in routine care. Validity of filling in the Bath measures on Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Function Index, the Health Assessment Questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scales in comparison with paper versions. Rheumatology. 2009;49:99–104. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kep333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Newman ED, Lerch V, Jones JB, Stewart W. Touchscreen questionnaire patient data collection in rheumatology practice: development of a highly successful system using process redesign. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64:589–96. doi:10.1002/acr.21560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Salaffi F, Gasparini S, Ciapetti A, Gutierrez M, Grassi W. Usability of an innovative and interactive electronic system for collection of patient-reported data in axial spondyloarthritis: comparison with the traditional paper-administered format. Rheumatology. 2013;52:2062–70. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ket276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Haverman L, van Rossum MA, van Veenendaal M, van den Berg JM, Dolman KM, Swart J, et al. Effectiveness of a web-based application to monitor health-related quality of life. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e533. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0958.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Richter JG, Kampling C, Chehab G, Acar H, Becker A, Dieckert M, et al. Mobile medical documentation of patient-reported-outcome [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67:(Suppl 10). http://acrabstracts.org/abstract/mobile-medical-documentation-of-patient-reported-outcome/. Accessed 30 Sep 2015.

  80. El Miedany Y. e-Rheumatology: are we ready? Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:831–7. doi:10.1007/s10067-015-2897-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. American Telemedicine Association. What is telemedicine? [Internet]. http://www.americantelemed.org/about-telemedicine/what-is-telemedicine#.VgeaJX0pXnl. Accessed 27 Sep 2015.

  82. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Methodologies for assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.10.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Ball J, Lewinter C, Cullington D, et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:CD007228. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007228.pub2.

  84. Meade BJ, Dunbar JA. A virtual clinic: telemetric assessment and monitoring for rural and remote areas. 2004. http://www.rrh.org.au/articles/subviewnew.asp?ArticleID=296. Accessed 23 Sep 2015.

  85. Roberts LJ, Lamont EG, Lim I, Sabesan S, Barrett C. Telerheumatology: an idea whose time has come. Intern Med J. 2012;42:1072–8. doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02931.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Davis P, Howard R, Brockway P. Telehealth consultations in rheumatology: cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction. J Telemed Telecare. 2001;7 Suppl 1:10–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Piga M, Tradori I, Pani D, Barabino G, Dessì A, Raffo L, et al. Telemedicine applied to kinesiotherapy for hand dysfunction in patients with systemic sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis: recovery of movement and telemonitoring technology. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:1324–33. doi:10.3899/jrheum.130912.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Salaffi F, Ciapetti A, Gasparini S, Atzeni F, Sarzi-Puttini P, Baroni M. Web/Internet-based telemonitoring of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the time-integrated effects of a 24-week multicomponent intervention on key health outcomes in patients with fibromyalgia. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015;33:S93–101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. LeRouge C, Garfield M, Hevner A. Patient perspectives of telemedicine quality. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;9:25–40. doi:10.2147/PPA.S67506.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Ennis L, Robotham D, Denis M, Pandit N, Newton D, Rose D, et al. Collaborative development of an electronic Personal Health Record for people with severe and enduring mental health problems. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:1477. doi:10.1186/s12888-014-0305-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Herschman J, Kasenberg T, Levy D, Ruth N, Taberner C, Kaufman M, et al. Development of a smartphone app for adolescents with lupus: a collaborative meeting-based methodology inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2014;35:471–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Schick-Makaroff K, Molzahn A. Strategies to use tablet computers for collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:2. doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0205-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Richter JG, Becker A, Specker C, Monser R, Schneider M. Krankheitsbezogene Internetnutzung bei Patienten mit entzündlich-rheumatischen Systemerkrankungen. Z Rheumatol. 2004;63:216–22. doi:10.1007/s00393-004-0571-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Eysenbach G. Towards ethical guidelines for e-health: JMIR theme issue on eHealth ethics. J Med Internet Res. 2000;2:E7. doi:10.2196/jmir.2.1.e7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Segal C, Holve E, Sabharwal R. Collecting and using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR): challenges and opportunities [Internet]. 2013. http://repository.academyhealth.org/edm_briefs/10. Accessed 27 Sep 2015.

  97. Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Segal JB, Wu AW. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2013;51:S73–9. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1d84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Baldwin M, Spong A, Doward L, Gnanasakthy A. Patient-reported outcomes, patient-reported information: from randomized controlled trials to the social web and beyond. Patient. 2011;4:11–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Zangi HA, Ndosi M, Adams J, Andersen L, Bode C, Boström C, et al. EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:954–62. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Santana MJ, Haverman L, Absolom K, Takeuchi E, Feeny D, Grootenhuis M, et al. Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1707–18. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0903-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Newman JC, Feldman R. Copyright and Open Access at the Bedside. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(26):2447–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. German Federal Data Protection Act [Internet]. 1990. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bdsg_1990/. Accessed 22 Sep 2015.

  103. European Parliament. Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, OJ No L 169/1 of 1993-07-12 [Internet]. 1993. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1993L0042:20071011:en:PDF. Accessed 27 Sep 2015.

  104. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Mobile medical applications: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff Document [Internet]. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM263366.pdf. 2015 Feb 9 [Accessed 27 Sep 2015].

  105. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167. doi:10.1136/bmj.f167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Devlin NJ, Parkin D, Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Econ. 2010;19:886–905. doi:10.1002/hec.1608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. National Quality Forum. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) in performance measurement [Internet]. 2013. http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2012/12/Patient-Reported_Outcomes_in_Performance_Measurement.aspx. Accessed 27 Sep 2015.

  108. Cox A, Illsley M, Knibb W, Lucas C, O‘Driscoll M, Potter C, et al. The acceptability of e-technology to monitor and assess patient symptoms following palliative radiotherapy for lung cancer. Palliat Med. 2011;25:675–81. doi:10.1177/0269216311399489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Policlinic for Rheumatology and Hiller Research Centre for Rheumatology, University Clinic Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, Duesseldorf, Germany

    Jutta Richter M.D. & Matthias Schneider M.D.

  2. Policlinic for Rheumatology and Hiller Research Centre for Rheumatology, University Clinic Duesseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany

    Christina Kampling M.D.

Authors
  1. Jutta Richter M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Kampling M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Schneider M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jutta Richter M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Yasser El Miedany

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Richter, J., Kampling, C., Schneider, M. (2016). Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) in Rheumatology. In: El Miedany, Y. (eds) Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Rheumatic Diseases. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32851-5_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32851-5_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32849-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32851-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation