Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written dietary history taking for diabetes mellitus

Background: Diabetes is a chronic illness characterised by insulin resistance or deficiency, resulting in elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Diet and adherence to dietary advice is associated with lower HbA1c levels and control of disease. Dietary history may be an effective clinical tool for diabetes management and has traditionally been taken by oral-and-written methods, although it can also be collected using computer-assisted history taking systems (CAHTS). Although CAHTS were first described in the 1960s, there remains uncertainty about the impact of these methods on dietary history collection, clinical care and patient outcomes such as quality of life. Objectives: To assess the effects of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written dietary history taking on patient outcomes for diabetes mellitus. Search methods: We searched The Cochrane Library (issue 6, 2011), MEDLINE (January 1985 to June 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2011) and CINAHL (January 1981 to June 2011). Reference lists of obtained articles were also pursued further and no limits were imposed on languages and publication status. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking in patients with diabetes mellitus. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently scanned the title and abstract of retrieved articles. Potentially relevant articles were investigated as full text. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were abstracted for relevant population and intervention characteristics with any disagreements resolved by discussion, or by a third party. Risk of bias was similarly assessed independently. Main results: Of the 2991 studies retrieved, only one study with 38 study participants compared the two methods of history taking over a total of eight weeks. The authors found that as patients became increasingly familiar with using CAHTS, the correlation between patients' food records and computer assessments improved. Reported fat intake decreased in the control group and increased when queried by the computer. The effect of the intervention on the management of diabetes mellitus and blood glucose levels was not reported. Risk of bias was considered moderate for this study. Authors' conclusions: Based on one small study judged to be of moderate risk of bias, we tentatively conclude that CAHTS may be well received by study participants and potentially offer time saving in practice. However, more robust studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these. We cannot draw on any conclusions in relation to any other clinical outcomes at this stage

Computer-Assisted versus Oral-and-Written History Taking for the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease: a Systematic Review of the Literature

Background and objectives: CVD is an important global healthcare issue; it is the leading cause of global mortality, with an increasing incidence identified in both developed and developing countries. It is also an extremely costly disease for healthcare systems unless managed effectively. In this review we aimed to: – Assess the effect of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking on the quality of collected information for the prevention and management of CVD. – Assess the effect of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking on the prevention and management of CVD. Methods: Randomised controlled trials that included participants of 16 years or older at the beginning of the study, who were at risk of CVD (prevention) or were either previously diagnosed with CVD (management). We searched all major databases. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Results: We identified two studies. One comparing the two methods of history-taking for the prevention of cardiovascular disease n = 75. The study shows that generally the patients in the experimental group underwent more laboratory procedures, had more biomarker readings recorded and/or were given (or had reviewed), more dietary changes than the control group. The other study compares the two methods of history-taking for the management of cardiovascular disease (n = 479). The study showed that the computerized decision aid appears to increase the proportion of patients who responded to invitations to discuss CVD prevention with their doctor. The Computer-Assisted History Taking Systems (CAHTS) increased the proportion of patients who discussed CHD risk reduction with their doctor from 24% to 40% and increased the proportion who had a specific plan to reduce their risk from 24% to 37%. Discussion: With only one study meeting the inclusion criteria, for prevention of CVD and one study for management of CVD we did not gather sufficient evidence to address all of the objectives of the review. We were unable to report on most of the secondary patient outcomes in our protocol. Conclusions: We tentatively conclude that CAHTS can provide individually-tailored information about CVD prevention. However, further primary studies are needed to confirm these findings. We cannot draw any conclusions in relation to any other clinical outcomes at this stage. There is a need to develop an evidence base to support the effective development and use of CAHTS in this area of practice. In the absence of evidence on effectiveness, the implementation of computer-assisted history taking may only rely on the clinicians’ tacit knowledge, published monographs and viewpoint articles

The Role of Health Kiosks in 2009: Literature and Informant Review

Kiosks can provide patients with access to health systems in public locations, but with increasing home Internet access their usefulness is questioned. A literature and informant review identified kiosks used for taking medical histories, health promotion, self assessment, consumer feedback, patient registration, patient access to records, and remote consultations. Sited correctly with good interfaces, kiosks can be used by all demographics but many ‘projects’ have failed to become routine practice. A role remains for: (a) integrated kiosks as part of patient ‘flow’, (b) opportunistic kiosks to catch people’s attention. Both require clear ‘ownership’ to succeed