Search

PURPOSE We compared the completeness of data collection using paper forms and using electronic forms loaded on handheld computers in an offi ce-based patient interview survey conducted within the American Academy of Family Phy- sicians National Research Network. METHODS We asked 19 medical assistants and nurses in family practices to administer a survey about pneumococcal immunizations to 60 older adults each, 30 using paper forms and 30 using electronic forms on handheld computers. By random assignment, the interviewers used either the paper or electronic form fi rst. Using multilevel analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and clustering of forms by practice, we analyzed the completeness of the data. RESULTS A total of 1,003 of the expected 1,140 forms were returned to the data center. The overall return rate was better for paper forms (537 of 570, 94%) than for electronic forms (466 of 570, 82%) because of technical diffi culties experienced with electronic data collection and stolen or lost handheld comput- ers. Errors of omission on the returned forms, however, were more common using paper forms. Of the returned forms, only 3% of those gathered electroni- cally had errors of omission, compared with 35% of those gathered on paper. Similarly, only 0.04% of total survey items were missing on the electronic forms, compared with 3.5% of the survey items using paper forms. CONCLUSIONS Although handheld computers produced more complete data than the paper method for the returned forms, they were not superior because of the large amount of missing data due to technical diffi culties with the hand- held computers or loss or theft. Other hardware solutions, such as tablet comput- ers or cell phones linked via a wireless network directly to a Web site, may be better electronic solutions for the future.

PURPOSE In 2004, a commentary by Merenstein was published in JAMA describing how he was sued for engaging a patient in shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. The article sparked considerable debate on the impact of litigation on medical care. A natural experiment (a study assessing shared decision making under way at the practice that was sued) enabled us to evaluate whether physicians changed their prostate cancer screening behavior after the lawsuit. METHODS As part of a randomized controlled trial conducted between January 2002 and November 2004, patients and physicians completed exit questionnaires about prostate cancer screening discussions after health maintenance examinations. We compared responses before, during, and after physicians became aware of the lawsuit. RESULTS A total of 432 of 497 patients completed questionnaires (180 before the practice became aware of the lawsuit, 87 as knowledge of the case diffused through the practice, and 165 after publication of Merenstein’s commentary). Comparing patients’ responses over the 3 time periods, there were no changes in the average locus of decision-making control, time spent discussing screening, number of screening topics discussed, knowledge scores, or decisional conflict. The frequency with which physicians reported performing prostate-specific antigen testing increased (before vs after: 84% vs 90%; P = .03), and physicians were more likely to report that they, rather than the patients, had made the screening decision (before vs after: 3.3% vs 11.1%; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS The physicians in closest proximity to this well-known legal case continued to engage patients in shared decision making and to let patients decide whether to be screened. Prostate-specific antigen testing increased during this period.