Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Development and usability evaluation of an electronic health report form to assess health in young people: a mixed-methods approach

Authors: Petra V Lostelius, Magdalena Mattebo, Eva Thors Adolfsson, Anne Söderlund, Mikael Andersén, Sofia Vadlin, Åsa Revenäs

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePROs) have potential to improve health outcomes and healthcare. The development of health-technology applications, such as ePROs, should include the potential users and be theoretically grounded. Swedish Youth Health Clinics (YHCs) offer primarily sexual and psychological healthcare for young people aged 12 to 25 years old. Young people in healthcare settings are considered a vulnerable group. The development of a collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in an Electronic Health Report Form (eHRF) for identifying health and health-related problems in young people, was preceded by a qualitative interview study, exploring young people’s views on using an eHRF at YHCs and which questions about health an eHRF should contain. The aim of the current study was to develop and evaluate the usability of an eHRF prototype for identifying health and health-related problems in young people visiting YHCs.

Methods

This study used a participatory design. During the development, an expert panel consisting of eight researchers and one Information Technology worker, participated. A wide literature search was performed to find PROs to construct an eHRF prototype to cover health areas. A mixed methods usability evaluation included 14 participants (young people, healthcare professionals, and an expert panel).

Results

The development resulted in an eHRF prototype, containing ten reliable and valid health questionnaires addressing mental-, physical-, and sexual health and social support, a self-efficacy question, and background questions, in total 74 items. The interviews in the usability evaluation resulted in three categories describing the usability of the eHRF: ‘Captures the overall health of young people but needs clarification’, ‘Fun, easy, and optional and will keep young people’s interest’, and ‘Potential contribution to improve the health consultation’. The quantitative results support the usability of the eHRF for YHCs.

Conclusions

The participatory approach contributed to development of the eHRF prototype to cover health areas adapted for the target population. The usability evaluation showed that the eHRF was usable and had the potential for self-reflection and contributions to cooperation between young people and healthcare professionals during the health consultation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Meirte J, Hellemans N, Anthonissen M, Denteneer L, Maertens K, Moortgat P, et al. Benefits and disadvantages of electronic patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review. JMIR Perioper Med. 2020;3(1):e15588.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
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(4):419–29.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Sharma A, Harrington RA, McClellan MB, Turakhia MP, Eapen ZJ, Steinhubl S, et al. Using Digital Health Technology to Better Generate evidence and deliver evidence-based care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(23):2680–90.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Riis CL, Stie M, Bechmann T, Jensen PT, Coulter A, Möller S et al. ePRO-based individual follow-up care for women treated for early breast cancer: impact on service use and workflows. J Cancer Surviv. 2021.
5.
6.
Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into Drug Development and Communication: an ad Hoc Task Force Report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group Meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health. 2003;6(5):522–31.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, Beresford P, Brady L-M, Brett J, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J consumer Stud. 2011;35(6):628–32.CrossRef
8.
Haywood KL. Patient-reported outcome II: selecting appropriate measures for musculoskeletal care. Musculoskelet Care. 2007;5(2):72–90.CrossRef
9.
Trujols J, Portella MJ, Iraurgi I, Campins MJ, Siñol N, de Los Cobos JP. Patient-reported outcome measures: are they patient-generated, patient-centred or patient-valued? J Ment Health. 2013;22(6):555–62.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Goodyear-Smith F, Corter A, Suh H. Electronic screening for lifestyle issues and mental health in youth: a community-based participatory research approach. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):140.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Thabrew H, Kumar H, Goldfinch M, Cavadino A, Goodyear-Smith F. Repeated psychosocial screening of High School Students using YouthCHAT: Cohort Study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3(2):e20976.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Thabrew H, Goodyear-Smith F. Youth version, case-finding and help Assessment Tool (YouthCHAT): an electronic, psychosocial screener for young people with long-term physical conditions. J Paediatr Child Health. 2019;56(1):102–6.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Martel RM, Darragh ML, Lawrence AJ, Shepherd MJ, Wihongi T, Goodyear-Smith FA. YouthCHAT as a primary Care E-Screening Tool for Mental Health Issues among Te Tai Tokerau Youth: protocol for a Co-Design Study. JMIR Res protocols. 2019;8(1):e12108.CrossRef
14.
Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Coupe N. Asking for help is helpful: validation of a brief lifestyle and mood assessment tool in primary health care. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(3):239–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Hammarstrom S, Nilsen P, Lindroth M, Stenqvist K, Bernhardsson S. Identifying young people exposed to or at risk of sexual ill health: pilot implementation of an evidence-informed toolkit (SEXIT) at swedish youth clinics. Eur J Contracept reproductive health care: official J Eur Soc Contracept. 2019;24(1):45–53.CrossRef
16.
Hammarström S, Lindroth M, Nilsen P, Nolskog P, Bernhardsson S. Staff’s experiences of a pilot implementation of the SEXual health identification Tool for assessing sexual ill health among visitors to swedish youth clinics: a focus group study. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2021;29:100643.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Robards F, Kang M, Luscombe G, Sanci L, Steinbeck K, Jan S, et al. Predictors of young people’s healthcare access in the digital age. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2019;43(6):582–8.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–36.PubMedCrossRef
20.
World Health Organization. Basic documents of the World Health Organization 49 ed. New York, NY.: World Health Organization; 2020. (n.d.).
21.
Lostelius P, Mattebo M, Söderlund A, Revenäs Ã, Thors Adolfsson E. An electronic patient-reported outcome created based on my needs is worth using: an explorative qualitative study investigating young people’s opinions for a health assessment tool. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2022;6(1):29.CrossRef
22.
DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. United States pf America. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2017.
23.
24.
Sverker A, Thyberg I, Valtersson E, Björk M, Hjalmarsson S, Östlund G. Time to update the ICF by including socioemotional qualities of participation? The development of a “patient ladder of participation” based on interview data of people with early rheumatoid arthritis (the swedish TIRA study). Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42(9):1212–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Bandura A. The primacy of self-regulation in Health Promotion. Appl Psychol. 2005;54(2):245–54.CrossRef
26.
27.
Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research Design. Qualitative, quantitative & mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2018.
28.
Page K. Ethics and the co-production of knowledge. Public Health Res Pract. 2022;32(2).
29.
30.
Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Bandura A, Guide for constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents [Internet]. Greenwich, CT, USA.: Information Age Publishing INC; 2005.
32.
Brooke J. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan P, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B, McClelland, editors. I, redaktörer. Usability evaluation in industry. Volume I. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. pp. 189–94.
33.
Lewis JR. The System Usability Scale: past, Present, and Future. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2018;34(7):577–90.CrossRef
34.
35.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.PubMedCrossRef
36.
37.
38.
Liskola J, Haravuori H, Lindberg N, Niemelä S, Karlsson L, Kiviruusu O, et al. AUDIT and AUDIT-C as screening instruments for alcohol problem use in adolescents. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;188:266–73.PubMedCrossRef
39.
King A, Wold B, Tudor-Smith C, Harel Y. The health of youth. A cross-national survey. WHO Reg Publ Eur Ser. 1996;69:1–222.PubMed
40.
Haugland S, Wold B. Subjective health complaints in adolescence–reliability and validity of survey methods. J Adolesc. 2001;24(5):611–24.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Morgan JF, Reid F, Lacey JH. The SCOFF questionnaire: assessment of a new screening tool for eating disorders. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1999;319(7223):1467–8.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Schulz U, Schwarzer R. Soziale Unterstützung bei der Krankheitsbewältigung. Die Berliner Social Support Skalen (BSSS) [Social support in coping with illness: the Berlin Social Support Scales (BSSS)]. Diagnostica. 2003;49:73–82.CrossRef
45.
Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research. 2003;27(2):94–104.CrossRef
46.
Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2019;15(2):214–21.CrossRef
47.
Kutcher S, Wei Y, Costa S, Gusmão R, Skokauskas N, Sourander A. Enhancing mental health literacy in young people. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016;25(6):567–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Berkman ND, Davis TC, McCormack L. Health literacy: what is it? J Health Communication. 2010;15(sup2):9–19.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2015.
50.
Graham GN, Ostrowski M, Sabina AB. Population health-based approaches to utilizing digital technology: a strategy for equity. J Public Health Policy. 2016;37(Suppl 2):154–66.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Bradford S, Rickwood D. Acceptability and utility of an electronic psychosocial assessment (myAssessment) to increase self-disclosure in youth mental healthcare: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:305.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Thabrew H, D’Silva S, Darragh M, Goldfinch M, Meads J, Goodyear-Smith F. Comparison of YouthCHAT, an electronic Composite Psychosocial Screener, with a clinician interview Assessment for Young People: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(12):e13911.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Payne TH, Hines LE, Chan RC, Hartman S, Kapusnik-Uner J, Russ AL, et al. Recommendations to improve the usability of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(6):1243–50.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Association for Computing Machinery; 1993. p. 206–13.
55.
Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner (SKR). Ungdomsmottagningar och ungas sexuella hälsa. Nuläge och vägen framåt. ; 2020. Report No.: ISBN 978-91-7585-880-7.
56.
Alvesson M, Sköldberg K. Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research. 3rd ed. London: Sage publications; 2017.
57.
Marmot M. Achieving health equity: from root causes to fair outcomes. Lancet (London England). 2007;370(9593):1153–63.PubMedCrossRef
58.
59.
Selin KH. Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT): what does it screen? Performance of the AUDIT against four different criteria in a swedish population sample. Subst Use Misuse. 2006;41(14):1881–99.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Metadata
Title
Development and usability evaluation of an electronic health report form to assess health in young people: a mixed-methods approach
Authors
Petra V Lostelius
Magdalena Mattebo
Eva Thors Adolfsson
Anne Söderlund
Mikael Andersén
Sofia Vadlin
Åsa Revenäs
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02191-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2023 Go to the issue

Research

Predicting decompression surgery by applying multimodal deep learning to patients’ structured and unstructured health data

Research

Development and user testing of a patient decision aid for cancer patients considering treatment for anxiety or depression

Research

Visual transformer and deep CNN prediction of high-risk COVID-19 infected patients using fusion of CT images and clinical data

Correction

Correction to: Predicting polypharmacy in half a million adults in the Iranian population: comparison of machine learning algorithms

Research

Perturbing BEAMs: EEG adversarial attack to deep learning models for epilepsy diagnosing

Research

Development and validation of a nomogram for blood transfusion during intracranial aneurysm clamping surgery: a retrospective analysis