Feasibility testing of smart tablet questionnaires compared to paper questionnaires in an amputee rehabilitation clinic.
BACKGROUND
Capturing the variability that exists among patients attending an amputee clinic using standardized paper-based questionnaires is time-consuming and may not be practical for routine clinical use. Electronic questionnaires are a potential solution; however, the benefits are dependent on the feasibility and acceptance of this mode of data collection among patients.


OBJECTIVE
To determine the feasibility and patient preference/comfort in using a tablet-based questionnaire for data collection in an outpatient amputee rehabilitation clinic compared to a traditional paper-based questionnaire.


METHODS
Observational study.


METHODS
In all, 48 patients with major extremity amputations completed both tablet and paper questionnaires related to their amputation and prosthetic use. Both trials were timed; patients then completed a semi-structured questionnaire about their experience.


RESULTS
In all, 20.5% of patients needed hands-on assistance completing the paper questionnaire compared to 20.8% for the tablet. The majority of participants (52.1%) indicated a preference for the tablet questionnaire; 64.6% of patients felt the tablet collected a more complete and accurate representation of their status and needs. In all, 70.8% of participants described themselves as comfortable using the tablet.


CONCLUSIONS
Despite comorbidities, patients with amputations demonstrated excellent acceptance of the electronic tablet-based questionnaire. Tablet questionnaires have significant potential advantages over paper questionnaires and should be further explored. Clinical relevance A custom electronic questionnaire was found to be beneficial for routine clinic use and was well received by patients in an amputee rehabilitation clinic. Development of such questionnaires can provide an efficient mechanism to collect meaningful data that can be used for individual patient care and program quality improvement initiatives.
1 St. Joseph's Health Care London, Parkwood Institute, London, ON, Canada.|2 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Michael
M
Payne
3 Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada.
Shannon
S
Janzen
4 Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Eric
E
Earl
1 St. Joseph's Health Care London, Parkwood Institute, London, ON, Canada.
Barry
B
Deathe
1 St. Joseph's Health Care London, Parkwood Institute, London, ON, Canada.|2 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Ricardo
R
Viana
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000671:Amputation, Surgical / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D001186:Artificial Limbs; D034201:Computers, Handheld; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D057240:Patient Preference; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult
Amputation; amputees; computers (handheld); questionnaire