ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Meagan E. Stabler, PhD; John Westfall, MD, MPH; Donald E. Nease, Jr., MD; Jennifer Raymond, ABA; Bruce Jobse, MPH; Zoe Daudier, BS; Laurie Emanuele, MBA; Elisabeth Wilson, MD, MPH, MS-HPEd; Maureen Boardman, APRN, MSN; Neil Korsen, MD, MSc; Charles D. MacLean, MD; Constance van Eeghen, DrPH, MHSA, MBA; Paula S. Hudon, DNP, RN; Timothy E. Burdick, MD, MBA, MSc
Corresponding Author: Meagan E. Stabler, PhD; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Health
Email: meagan.e.stabler@hitchcock.org
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2024.240199R1
Keywords: Data Collection, Family Medicine, New England, Physicians, Practice-Based Research, Practice-Based Research Networks, Primary Health Care, Research, Research Design
Dates: Submitted: 05-20-2024; Revised: 07-08-2024; Accepted: 07-15-2024
FINAL PUBLICATION: |HTML| |PDF|
BACKGROUND: For decades, researchers have utilized paper card studies to assess primary care clinician (PCC) perceptions across various clinical and practice topics. Since 2022, cards can be completed electronically through the electronic health record (EHR) or a novel smartphone application (app). These delivery modalities have not previously been evaluated head-to-head. We report findings from a work in progress comparing paper, EHR, and app-delivered cards.
METHODS: The Northern New England CO-OP Practice and Community Based Research Network recruited 15 PCCs from 3 clinics to collect a total of 324 cards from unique patient visits over 4 clinical days per PCC on the topic of “telehealth burden”. Each clinic utilized a different data collection modality and collected approximately 100 cards. After completing the cards, we surveyed PCCs about their user experience. Our primary outcomes were PCC experience, card completion rates, and total cost of using the cards.
RESULTS: PCCs reported that data collection was easy and the card study did not disrupt clinical operations regardless of modality. Paper cards had the highest completion rate and were least expensive for a small-scale card study, but were most expensive when scaled due to the large amount of time to transcribe data manually. EHR was the most expensive modality for a small-scale card study, but EHR and app cards scaled better than paper.
CONCLUSIONS: While each modality has distinct advantages and disadvantages, all 3 card study data collection methods were acceptable to PCCs and obtained a high response rate.