AI Article Synopsis
- The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (E-PROMs) with traditional in-person PROM collection for orthopedic trauma patients.
- A total of 150 patients participated, with E-PROMs collected via automated emails at various postoperative intervals, while in-person PROMs were gathered simultaneously in the clinic.
- Results showed that E-PROM collection had a significantly higher loss to follow-up rate and was less effective overall compared to in-person collection, indicating that traditional methods may be more reliable in this setting.
Article Abstract
Objectives: Electronic patient-reported outcome measure (E-PROM) collection is a technological advancement that has the potential to facilitate PROM collection in orthopaedic trauma. The purpose of this study was to compare E-PROM versus in-person PROM collection.
Design: This is a retrospective comparative study.
Setting: Urban Level I trauma center.
Patients/participants: One hundred and fifty consecutive operative orthopaedic trauma patients.
Intervention: The Percent of Normal single assessment numerical evaluation and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function were collected through automated e-mails from an online patient-engagement platform (PatientIQ, Chicago, IL) 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month postoperatively. The Percent of Normal was also administered to patients in clinic at the same time intervals.
Main Outcome Measurements: Completion of PROMs; Loss to follow-up.
Results: The median clinical follow-up time was 4 months (interquartile range: 1.3-6 months), and 42.7% (64/150) were lost to follow-up. Loss to follow-up was associated with a more disadvantaged area deprivation index [observed difference, 7.0, 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 13.0; P = 0.01] and noncommercial/no insurance (observed difference 34.8%, confidence interval, 20.9%-45.5%; P < 0.0001). In-person PROM collection was more successful than E-PROM collection at all intervals [2-week (51.3% vs 20.7), 6-week (46.7% vs 20.0%), 3-month (50.0% vs 18.7%), and 6-month (38.0% vs 18.7%), P < 0.0001]. Patients who completed 3-month E-PROMs had longer clinical follow-up (5.2 vs. 3.0 months, P = 0.004) and a trend of being less likely to be lost to follow-up (28.6% vs 45.9%, P = 0.13).
Conclusion: E-PROMs were less successful than in-person PROM collection in trauma patients at an urban safety net trauma center.
Level Of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002687 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!