Download PDF
Nervenheilkunde 2014; 33(09): 631-637
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1627718
Originalarbeit
Schattauer GmbH

“Mit Computern kenne ich mich eigentlich nicht aus …”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit und Akzeptanz tabletbasierter Depressionsdiagnostik im Vergleich mit Papier-Bleistift-Erhebungen in einer Stichprobe ab 60-jähriger Hausarzt-Patienten“Actually I am not a computer literate …”Usability and acceptance of depression measurement by tablet administration versus paper-pencil mode in German primary care patients _60 years
L. Spangenberg
1   Abteilung für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Universität Leipzig
,
T. Forkmann
2   Institut für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen
,
H. Glaesmer
1   Abteilung für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Universität Leipzig
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingegangen am: 07 January 2014

angenommen am: 24 April 2014

Publication Date:
24 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hilbert S. Tablet-PC im Praxisalltag: Unterstützung bei der Anamnese. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2011; 108 (45) A2417.
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Forkmann T. Was ist adaptives Testen?. Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie 2011; 61 (3–4): 182.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Emmelkamp PMG. Technological innovations in clinical assessment and psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2005; 74 (06) 336-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Djernes JK. Prevalence and predictors of depression in populations of elderly: a review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2006; 113 (05) 372-87.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fiske A, Wetherell JL, Gatz M. Depression in older adults. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2009; 05: 363.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Conwell Y, Van Orden K. Caine Suicide in older adults. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 2011; 34 (02) 451.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Carney RM, Freedland KE. Depression, mortality, and medical morbidity in patients with coronary heart disease. Biological Psychiatry 2003; 54 (03) 241-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Beblo T, Schrader S, Brand C. Diagnostik depressiver Störungen im Alter. Zeitschrift für Gerontopsychologie und -psychiatrie 2005; 18 (04) 177-87.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Stieglitz RD. Diagnostik depressiver Störungen. Therapeutische Umschau 2010; 67 (11) 59-63.
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals 2002; 32 (09) 509-15.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Zipfel S, Herzog W. Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D). Manual und Testunterlagen. Karlsruhe: Pfizer 2002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wittchen HU, Zaudig M, Fydrich T. SKID-I und SKID-II Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Göttingen: Hogrefe 1997
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar