PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11018366

Electronic versus paper instruments for daily data collection.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Collecting daily information on a series of similar, recurring events such as menstrual bleeding, headaches, or insulin levels using paper instruments is subject to problems such as missing or incorrectly recorded data, and retrospective data entry. The authors are developing and evaluating electronic data collection using hand-held personal computers (H/PC) for a variety of health-related applications, including tracking premenstrual syndrome (PMS), fertility awareness, and headaches, to improve accuracy and timeliness of data collection.METHODS: ProCycle is a prototype electronic diary for collection of daily data on menstrual bleeding, medications, and health symptoms. In a 3-month pilot test in 25 regularly cycling women, we compared its performance with a paper calendar regarding missing and incorrect data, data entry lag, data cleaning time, and users' preferences with respect to factors such as remembering to enter data, convenience, and overall preference. Additional programs for PMS, fertility, and headaches are being field tested on subjects from the Boston and New York areas, comparing performance with paper versions.RESULTS: In the pilot test, missing data occurred less frequently with ProCycle than with paper, particularly for any days with missing symptoms (4% vs. 35%, p < 0.05). ProCycle did not permit any data recording mistakes such as circling contradictory responses (e.g., bleeding and no bleeding), compared with incorrect data on 13% of paper calendars. Data entry/cleaning time was 81% lower for ProCycle. 70% of users preferred ProCycle overall, compared with 9% preferring paper (p < 0.01).CONCLUSIONS: Although the initial cost of the H/PC is significantly higher than paper, there are no recurring charges for printing or data entry, and data cleaning is minimal. Electronic instruments on an H/PC provide an efficient, accurate method of data collection, applicable to a number of areas of health-related research involving daily data collection.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Johannes, J Woods, S Crawford, H Cochran, D Tran, B Schuth. 2000-10-01. Electronic versus paper instruments for daily data collection.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1047-2797(00)00141-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗