Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Informatics
Date Submitted: Aug 19, 2024
Date Accepted: Apr 11, 2025
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Patient perspectives on digital technology and experiences of computerized history taking for chest pain management in the emergency department: The CLEOS-CPDS prospective cohort study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Automated, self-reported medical history taking has the potential for improving the physician - patient dialogue and for delivering patient - reported information across a wide range of clinical issues. Medical history data was entered by patients on a tablet in an emergency department in the CLEOS‐Chest Pain Danderyd Study (CLEOS-CPDS). Since successful implementation of this technology depends on understanding patients’ views and willingness to use such technology, we have studied this after their entry into the CLEOS study.
Objective:
To develop a questionnaire to investigate patients’ attitudes, perceptions and skills when using digital technology in health care in general and their experience of using the CLEOS program at an emergency department, which they visited for care of chest pain.
Methods:
The study design included the development of a questionnaire, followed by a cross-sectional study. Questionnaire design and the Technology Acceptance Model underpinned the development of the questionnaire. The think-aloud method was used to test the questionnaire. Adults who participated in the CLEOS-CPDS were invited consecutively to respond to the questionnaire. Descriptive and correlational analyses were performed.
Results:
The refinement of the questionnaire included language revision, removal of similar items and replacement of some response formats. The final questionnaire consisted of 16 items and one free text comment that assessed attitudes, perceptions, and skills related to the use of digital technology in health care in general and the specific experience of using the self-reported history taking by CLEOS. The mean age of the participants was 56 years. A clear majority of the 129 patients who answered the questionnaire found it easy to use digital technology in general. Most believed that digital technology has a role when seeking health care; and two thirds believed that patient-reported symptoms are helpful in making a diagnosis. Most felt confident in answering the CLEOS-CPDS questions on a tablet. However, one third were concerned that the interaction between patient and physician would be disrupted when using digital technology in health care. Correlation analyses showed that older age was associated with less ease (p≤0.001), confidence (p≤0.001), and trust (p=0.002) when using digital technology. Moreover, older age was associated with worry that the patient-doctor personal contact would be disrupted when using digital technology in health care (p=0.001)
Conclusions:
This study indicates strong approval of usefulness and trust of digital technology in health care but the concern for lack of personal contact should be acknowledged. The CLEOS program performed well for end users but would benefit from some adjustments for future studies. The questionnaire obtained new insights on perceived usability of digital technology for health care delivery and appears relevant for future evaluations in other contexts. Clinical Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03439449
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.