A pragmatic randomized trial comparing tablet computer informed consent to traditional paper-based methods for an osteoporosis study

AbstractObjectiveMethods to improve informed consent efficiency and effectiveness are needed for pragmatic clinical trials. We compared informed consent using a tablet computer to a paper approach to assess comprehension and satisfaction of patients and clinic staff for a future osteoporosis clinical trial.MethodsNine community-based practices identified and recruited patients to compare the informed consent processes (tablet vs. paper) in a mock osteoporosis clinical trial. The tablet informed consent included an animation summarizing the trial, complete informed consent document, and questions to assess and reinforce comprehension of the study. Participants were women age ≥55 years with ≥1 year of alendronate use. We surveyed participants to assess comprehension and satisfaction and office staff for satisfaction and perceived time demands.ResultsThe nine practices enrolled 33 participants. There was not a significant difference in comprehension between the tablet vs. paper informed consent [mean (SD) tablet: 12.2 (1.0) vs. paper: 11.4 (1.7)]. Office staff preferred the tablet to the paper informed consent for identifying potential study participants (two-sided t-test p = 0.02) despite an increased perceived time spent to complete the tablet process [tablet: 28.3 min (SD 16.3) vs. paper: 19.0 min (SD 6.9); p = 0.08].ConclusionsAlthough, there were no significant differences in participant satisfaction and comprehension with the tablet informed consent compared to a paper informed consent, patients and office staff trended towards greater satisfaction with the tablet informed consent. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate the utility of electronic informed consent in pragmatic clinical trials

2012 Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology Recommendations for the Use of Disease‐Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Biologic Agents in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90529/1/21641_ftp.pd

Which factors predict discordance between a patient and physician on a gout flare?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with discordance between patient and physician on the presence of a gout flare. METHODS: Patients' self-reports of current gout flares were assessed with the question, 'Are you having a gout flare today?' which was then compared with a concurrent, blinded, physician's assessment. Based on agreement or disagreement with physicians on the presence of a gout flare, flares were divided into concordant and discordant groups, respectively. Within the discordant group, two subgroups-patient-reported flare but the physician disagreed and physician-reported flare but the patient disagreed-were identified. The factors associated with discordance were analysed with multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 268 gout flares, 81 (30.2%) flares were discordant, with either patient or physician disagreeing on the presence of a flare. Of the discordant flares, in 57 (70.4%) the patient reported a flare but the physician disagreed. In multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, disagreement among patients and physicians on the presence of a gout flare was associated with lower pain scores at rest [odds ratio (OR) for each point increase on 0-10 point pain scale 0.81 (95% Wald CI 0.73, 0.90), P < 0.0001] and less presence of joint swelling [OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.10, 0.61), P = 0.003] or joint warmth [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.20, 0.75), P = 0.005]. CONCLUSION: Although patients and physicians generally agree about the presence of gout flare, discordance may occur in the setting of low pain scores and in the absence of swollen or warm joints