CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Methods Inf Med 2018; 57(S 02): e107-e114
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675397
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Electronic Collection of Multilingual Patient-Reported Outcomes across Europe

I. Soto-Rey
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
M. Rehr
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
P. Bruland
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
C. Zeidler
2   Center for Chronic Pruritus and Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
C. Riepe
2   Center for Chronic Pruritus and Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
S. Steinke
2   Center for Chronic Pruritus and Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
S. Ständer
2   Center for Chronic Pruritus and Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
M. Dugas
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
M. Storck
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Funding This study was supported by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV project No. 2014-022).
Further Information

Publication History

10 April 2018

31 July 2018

Publication Date:
19 November 2018 (online)

Abstract

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are information provided directly by patients that helps in improving patient diagnosis and treatment. Validated translations of PROs can be used to treat international patients. Electronic systems and especially mobile devices provide a great opportunity for their collection; however, these systems are normally study-oriented and therefore single language, not scalable, and not interoperable.

Objectives This article reports the development of a multicenter, multilingual, and interoperable electronic PRO (ePRO) system and evaluates its user satisfaction in an international clinical study.

Methods The ePRO named “MoPat2” was developed using Java 8 and jQuery Mobile 1.4.5. The system was evaluated in the context of the European dermatology project “European Network on Assessment of Severity and Burden of Pruritus”(PruNet), which aimed to unify the assessment of itch in routine dermatological care in Europe. Twenty-six clinicians and 468 patients from 8 European clinical centers were asked to complete a user satisfaction questionnaire regarding the use of MoPat2 with a tablet personal computer. The results were then analyzed and correlated with the age, gender, and language of the respondents.

Results MoPat2 was enhanced with multilingual capabilities and is now able to conduct surveys in several languages, as well as store and display the results in the local language. The interviewed clinicians rated the system with an average score of 2.0 (“good”) in a 1 to 5 Likert scale. Note that 93.9% of the patients (439 of 468) reported having got on well using the system and 88.9% (416 of 456) would be willing to further use it. The age of the patients not willing to further use MoPat2 was, in average, considerably higher than the age of patients willing to use the system.

Conclusions This study represents the first use of an ePRO system for the collection of multilingual PROs in an international, multicenter setting. MoPat2 has been evaluated by both clinicians and patients in the context of a European dermatological study, resulting in a high user satisfaction. The system will be further developed to include new features such as patient follow-ups outside of the clinical setting.

Note

The PruNet study that includes the satisfaction evaluation was registered in the Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien No. DRKS00007958.


Authors' Contributions

ISR led the development of the electronic PROs and the satisfaction evaluation and wrote the manuscript. MR built the statistics. PB was in charge of the research database and made the exports. CZ arranged the translations. CR helped with the data collection. SS tested and corrected the electronic PROs and helped to collect data. SS led the clinical group and helped to design the study. MD led the technical group and helped to design the study. MS led the development of MoPat and supervised the drafting of the manuscript. All of the authors approved and helped to draft the manuscript.


Supplementary Material

 
  • References

  • 1 Raghupathi W, Raghupathi V. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Inf Sci Syst 2014; 2: 3
  • 2 Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A. , et al. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24 (05) 1103-1117
  • 3 Shekelle P, Morton SC, Keeler EB. Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006
  • 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 79 Doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79
  • 5 Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?. Qual Life Res 2009; 18 (01) 115-123
  • 6 Acquadro C, Bayles A, Juniper E. Translating patient-reported outcome measures: a multi-step process is essential. J Bras Pneumol 2014; 40 (03) 211-212
  • 7 Schwei RJ, Del Pozo S, Agger-Gupta N. , et al. Changes in research on language barriers in health care since 2003: a cross-sectional review study. Int J Nurs Stud 2016; 54: 36-44
  • 8 United Nations. International Migration Report. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highlights.pdf . Accessed September 11, 2018
  • 9 Karliner LS, Pérez-Stable EJ, Gildengorin G. The language divide. The importance of training in the use of interpreters for outpatient practice. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19 (02) 175-183
  • 10 Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Lundy JJ, O'Donohoe P, O'Gorman H, Malizia W. Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient 2015; 8 (04) 301-309
  • 11 Fritz F, Ständer S, Breil B, Riek M, Dugas M. CIS-based registration of quality of life in a single source approach. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011; 11: 26
  • 12 Storck M, Trinczek B, Dugas M, Fritz F. Towards a trial-ready mobile patient questionnaire system. Stud Health Technol Inform 2014; 205: 768-772
  • 13 Soto-Rey I, Dugas M, Storck M. Implementation of an ODM and HL7 compliant electronic patient-reported outcome system. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 228: 421-425
  • 14 Ständer S, Zeidler C, Riepe C. , et al. European EADV network on assessment of severity and burden of Pruritus (PruNet): first meeting on outcome tools. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2016; 30 (07) 1144-1147
  • 15 Bruland P, Forster C, Breil B, Ständer S, Dugas M, Fritz F. Does single-source create an added value? Evaluating the impact of introducing x4T into the clinical routine on workflow modifications, data quality and cost-benefit. Int J Med Inform 2014; 83 (12) 915-928
  • 16 Kim BY, Lee J. Smart devices for older adults managing chronic disease: a scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017; 5 (05) e69 Doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7141
  • 17 Plaza I, Martín L, Martin S, Medrano C. Mobile applications in an aging society: Status and trends. J Syst Softw 2011; 84 (11) 1977-1988
  • 18 Rolstad S, Adler J, Rydén A. Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health 2011; 14 (08) 1101-1108
  • 19 Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usabil Eval Industry 1996; 189 (194) 4-7
  • 20 Steele Gray C, Gill A, Khan AI, Hans PK, Kuluski K, Cott C. The electronic patient reported outcome tool: testing usability and feasibility of a mobile app and portal to support care for patients with complex chronic disease and disability in primary care settings. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016; 4 (02) e58
  • 21 Pinney S, Otobo E, Freeman R. , et al. Use of electronic patient reported outcomes and automated devices for heart failure disease management. IPROC 2017; 3 (01) e24
  • 22 Hartkopf AD, Graf J, Simoes E. , et al. Electronic-based patient-reported outcomes: willingness, needs, and barriers in adjuvant and metastatic breast cancer patients. JMIR Cancer 2017; 3 (02) e11
  • 23 Epis OM, Casu C, Belloli L. , et al. Pixel or paper? Validation of a mobile technology for collecting patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. JMIR Res Protoc 2016; 5 (04) e219
  • 24 LimeSurvey. The most popular FOSS survey tool on the web; 2016:36:30. Available at: https://www.limesurvey.org/de . Accessed September 11, 2018
  • 25 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
  • 26 Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62 (05) 337-347
  • 27 Holzner B, Giesinger JM, Pinggera J. , et al. The Computer-based Health Evaluation Software (CHES): a software for electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12: 126 Doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-126
  • 28 ResearchKit; 2016 :09:21. Available at: http://researchkit.org/ . Accessed September 11, 2018
  • 29 ResearchStack; 2016 :22:06. Available at: http://researchstack.org/ . Accessed September 11, 2018
  • 30 Pfiffner PB, Pinyol I, Natter MD, Mandl KD. C3-PRO: connecting Researchkit to the health system using i2b2 and FHIR. PLoS One 2016; 11 (03) e0152722