The Journal of reproductive medicine · 2005
Routine history as compared to audio computer-assisted self-interview for prenatal care history taking.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mears Molly, Coonrod Dean V, Bay R Curtis, Mills Terry E, Watkins Michelle C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare endorsement rates obtained with audio computer-assisted self-interview versus routine prenatal history.
STUDY DESIGN: A crosssectional study compared items captured with the routine history to those captured with a computer interview (computer screen displaying and computer audio reading questions, with responses entered by touch screen). The subjects were women (n=174) presenting to a public hospital clinic for prenatal care.
RESULTS: The prevalence of positive responses using the computer interview was significantly greater (p < 0.01) than with the routine history for induced abortion (16.8% versus 4.0%), lifetime smoking (12.8% versus 5.2%), intimate partner violence (10.0% versus 2.4%), ectopic pregnancy (5.2% versus 1.1%) and family history of mental retardation (6.7% versus 0.6%). Significant differences were not found for history of spontaneous abortion, hypertension, epilepsy, thyroid disease, smoking during pregnancy, gynecologic surgery, abnormal Pap test, neural tube defect or cystic fibrosis family history. However, in all cases, prevalence was equal or greater with the computer interview.
CONCLUSION: Women were more likely to report sensitive and high-risk behavior, such as smoking history, intimate partner violence and elective abortion, with the computer interview. The computer interview displayed equal or increased patient reporting of positive responses and may therefore be an accurate method of obtaining an initial history.
STUDY DESIGN: A crosssectional study compared items captured with the routine history to those captured with a computer interview (computer screen displaying and computer audio reading questions, with responses entered by touch screen). The subjects were women (n=174) presenting to a public hospital clinic for prenatal care.
RESULTS: The prevalence of positive responses using the computer interview was significantly greater (p < 0.01) than with the routine history for induced abortion (16.8% versus 4.0%), lifetime smoking (12.8% versus 5.2%), intimate partner violence (10.0% versus 2.4%), ectopic pregnancy (5.2% versus 1.1%) and family history of mental retardation (6.7% versus 0.6%). Significant differences were not found for history of spontaneous abortion, hypertension, epilepsy, thyroid disease, smoking during pregnancy, gynecologic surgery, abnormal Pap test, neural tube defect or cystic fibrosis family history. However, in all cases, prevalence was equal or greater with the computer interview.
CONCLUSION: Women were more likely to report sensitive and high-risk behavior, such as smoking history, intimate partner violence and elective abortion, with the computer interview. The computer interview displayed equal or increased patient reporting of positive responses and may therefore be an accurate method of obtaining an initial history.