“Mit Computern kenne ich mich eigentlich nicht aus …”

Summary

Objective: Self-report data is increasingly gathered by electronic devices. The present study aimed at testing usability and patient acceptance of two administration modes (tablet vs. paper-pencil) in primary care patients _ 60 years. Material and methods: Two depression instruments were administered using a randomized crossover design (n = 193). Results: Patients positively evaluated the usability of the tablet (clear presentation, well manageable). Additionally, the majority of patients preferred the tablet over the paper-pencil mode (more suitable, less stressful and difficult). Tablet mode and increasing age were associated with increased response time. Age, somatic morbidity and formal education showed only weak associations with usability and acceptance. Conclusion: Socio-demographic variables such as increasing age and formal education and somatic morbidity do not lead to limitations of use. Clinical relevance: The study demonstrates high usability and acceptance of depression assessment by tablets in elderly patients.

Zusammenfassung

Gegenstand und Ziel: Elektronisch erfasste Selbstbeurteilungen werden zunehmend eingesetzt. Diese Studie überprüft die Benutzerfreundlichkeit und Akzeptanz tabletbasierter Diagnostik im Vergleich mit Papier-Bleistift- Erhebungen bei Hausarzt-Patienten _ 60 Jahre. Material und Methoden: In einem randomisierten Cross-over-Design wurden zwei Depressionsinstrumente in beiden Modi erhoben (n = 193). Ergebnisse: Die Patienten beurteilten die Benutzerfreundlichkeit von Tablets sehr positiv (übersichtliche Darstellung, gut handhabbar) und mehrheitlich als besser geeignet, weniger anstrengend und weniger schwierig als Papierfragebögen. Die Bearbeitungszeit war beim Tablet sowie mit höherem Alter länger. Insgesamt zeigten Alter, somatische Morbidität und Bildungsstand nur geringe Assoziationen zu Benutzerfreundlichkeit und Akzeptanz. Schlussfolgerung: Es gibt keine Hinweise, dass es mit höherem Alter, höherer Morbidität oder in Abhängigkeit vom Bildungsstand spezifische Einsatzschwierigkeiten für Tablets gibt. Klinische Relevanz: Die Studie bescheinigt tabletgestützter Depressionsdiagnostik eine hohe Benutzerfreundlichkeit und Akzeptanz bei älteren Patienten.

Schlüsselwörter

Tablet - Ältere - Benutzerfreundlichkeit - Akzeptanz

Keywords

Tablet - elderly - usability - acceptance

• Literatur

• 1 Cella D. et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care 2007; 45 (05) S3-S11.
• 2 Hilbert S. Tablet-PC im Praxisalltag: Unterstützung bei der Anamnese. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2011; 108 (45) A2417.
• 3 Rogausch A, Sigle J, Seibert A, Thuring S, Kochen MM, Himmel W. Feasibility and acceptance of electronic quality of life assessment in general practice: an implementation study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2009; 7.
• 4 Forkmann T. Was ist adaptives Testen?. Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie 2011; 61 (3–4): 182.
• 5 Swartz RJ. et al. Mode effects in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale: personal digital assistant vs. paper and pencil administration. Quality of Life Research 2007; 16 (05) 803-13.
• 6 Velikova G. et al. Automated collection of qualityof-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1999; 17 (03) 998-1007.
• 7 Emmelkamp PMG. Technological innovations in clinical assessment and psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2005; 74 (06) 336-43.
• 8 Djernes JK. Prevalence and predictors of depression in populations of elderly: a review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2006; 113 (05) 372-87.
• 9 Luppa M. et al. Ageand gender-specific prevalence of depression in latest-life – Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders 2012; 136 (03) 212-21.
• 10 Fiske A, Wetherell JL, Gatz M. Depression in older adults. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2009; 05: 363.
• 11 Wilk K, Havers I, Bramesfeld A, Hegerl U. Früherkennung von Depression und Prävention von Suizidalität im Alter. Public Health Forum 2007; 15 (04) 26-8.
• 12 Conwell Y, Van Orden K. Caine Suicide in older adults. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 2011; 34 (02) 451.
• 13 Luppa M. et al. Age-related predictors of institutionalization: results of the German study on ageing, cognition and dementia in primary care patients (AgeCoDe). Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 2012; 47 (02) 263-70.
• 14 Carney RM, Freedland KE. Depression, mortality, and medical morbidity in patients with coronary heart disease. Biological Psychiatry 2003; 54 (03) 241-7.
• 15 Luppa M, Heinrich S, Angermeyer MC, König HH, Riedel-Heller SG. Healthcare costs associated with recognized and unrecognized depression in old age. International Psychogeriatrics 2008; 20 (06) 1219-29.
• 16 Luppa M. et al. Direct costs associated with depression in old age in Germany. Journal of Affective Disorders 2008; 105 (1–3): 195-204.
• 17 Beblo T, Schrader S, Brand C. Diagnostik depressiver Störungen im Alter. Zeitschrift für Gerontopsychologie und -psychiatrie 2005; 18 (04) 177-87.
• 18 Stieglitz RD. Diagnostik depressiver Störungen. Therapeutische Umschau 2010; 67 (11) 59-63.
• 19 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9 – Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2001; 16 (09) 606-13.
• 20 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals 2002; 32 (09) 509-15.
• 21 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Löwe B. The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review. General Hospital Psychiatry 2010; 32 (04) 345-59.
• 22 Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Zipfel S, Herzog W. Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D). Manual und Testunterlagen. Karlsruhe: Pfizer 2002
• 23 Forkmann T. et al. Adaptive screening for depression. Recalibration of an item bank for the assessment of depression in persons with mental and somatic diseases and evaluation in a simulated computer-adaptive test environment. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2013; 75 (05) 437-43.
• 24 Forkmann T, Böcker M, Wirtz M, Frey C, Gauggel S. Adaptives Testen in der Psychotherapie. Das Rasch-basierte Adaptive Depressionsscreening (A-DESC). Zeitschrift für Klinische Diagnostik und Evaluation 2010; 03 (01) 59-75.
• 25 Gilbody S, Richards D, Brealey S, Hewitt C. Screening for depression in medical settings with the patient health questionnaire (PHQ): A diagnostic meta-analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007; 22 (11) 1596-602.
• 26 Vehren T. et al. Cross-sectional validation of the Rasch-based Depression Screening (DESC) in a mixed sample of patientes with mental and somatic diseases. Comprehensive Psychiatry 2011; 54: 1082-9.
• 27 Coons SJ. 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 in Health 2009; 12 (04) 419-29.
• 28 Abernethy AP. et al. Improving health care efficiency and quality using tablet personal computers to collect research-quality, patient-eported Ddata. Health Services Research 2008; 43 (06) 1975-91.
• 29 Tiplady B. et al. Patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis assessing the equivalence of electronic and paper data collection. Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research 2010; 03 (03) 133-43.
• 30 Allenby A, Matthews J, Beresford J, McLachlan SA. The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. European Journal of Cancer Care 2002; 11 (04) 245-53.
• 31 Kuntsche E, Labhart F. Using personal cell phones for ecological momentary assessment an overview of current developments. European Psychologist 2013; 18 (01) 3-11.
• 32 Richter J. et al. Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2008; 67 (12) 1739-41.
• 33 Crawley JA, Kleinman L, Dominitz J. User preferences for computer administration of quality of life instruments. Drug Information Journal 2000; 34 (01) 137-44.
• 34 Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B. Electronic versus paper questionnaires: A further comparison in persons with asthma. Journal of Asthma 2003; 40 (07) 751-62.
• 35 Forkmann T. et al. Development of an item bank for the assessment of depression in persons with mental illnesses and physical diseases using rasch analysis. Rehabilitation Psychology 2009; 54 (02) 186-97.
• 36 Bayliss EA, Ellis JL, Steiner JF. Subjective assessments of comorbidity correlate with quality of life health outcomes: Intial validation of a comorbidity assessment instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2005 51. (3).
• 37 Bayliss EA, Ellis JL, Steiner JF. Senior´s self-reported multimorbidity captured biopsychosocial factors not incorporated into two other databased morbidity measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62 (05) 550-7.
• 38 Schäffeler N. et al. Akzeptanz und Reliabiliät eines elektronischen Screnings bei Patientinnen mit Brustkrebs: eine randomisiert-kontrollierte Studie. Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie 2013; 63: 374-380.
• 39 Wittchen HU, Zaudig M, Fydrich T. SKID-I und SKID-II Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Göttingen: Hogrefe 1997
• 40 Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988
• 41 Wittchen HU. et al. Cardiovascular risk factors in primary care: methods and baseline prevalence rates – the DETECT program. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2005; 21 (04) 619-29.
• 42 Riedel-Heller SG, Busse A, Angermeyer MC. The state of mental health in old-age across the ‘old’ European Union – a systematic review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2006; 113 (05) 388-401.