MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509725449 · doi:10.1177/0309364616661257

Feasibility testing of smart tablet questionnaires compared to paper questionnaires in an amputee rehabilitation clinic

2016· article· en· W2509725449 on OpenAlexaff
Michael W. Payne, Shannon Janzen, Eric Earl, Barry Deathe, Ricardo Viana

Bibliographic record

VenueProsthetics and Orthotics International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteSt Joseph's Health CareParkwood InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationObservational studyData collectionQuestionnaireOutpatient clinicClinical trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. STUDY DESIGN: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProsthetics and Orthotics InternationalSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207