Patient Experience With, and Use Of, an Electronic Monitoring System to Assess Vaccination Responses
Published in: Health Expectations, v. 9, no. 2, June 2006, p. 110-117
Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2006
Read More
Access further information on this document at www.blackwell-synergy.comThis article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the user experience and acceptability of an electronic patient monitoring system. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 822 Military and civilian personnel at a health clinic at a major US military headquarters used an Internet and telephone-based electronic monitoring system to report vaccination-site responses and symptoms after receiving the smallpox vaccination. Focus groups of vaccinees were conducted to help develop a survey about the experience that was distributed to 379 vaccinees (96% completion rate). RESULTS: Users of the electronic monitoring system reported that it was fast and easy to use and reported they would use a system like this again and recommend an electronic monitoring system to a friend or relative. Most users (84%) were comfortable with a physician tracking their vaccine reaction using their electronic reports, but only half (51%) were comfortable with eliminating the post-vaccination follow-up visit with their health-care provider based on their electronic reports. CONCLUSIONS: This electronic monitoring system was well received by vaccinees and allowed health-care providers to track the status of vaccinees. However, vaccinees were not comfortable replacing a physician visit with electronic monitoring, at least for the smallpox vaccination. A monitoring system like this may be useful in public health settings, such as mass vaccination or prophylaxis during a bioterrorism event, a pandemic influenza outbreak, or another public health emergency.
This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.