skip to main content
10.1145/3290688.3290737acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesacswConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design and Implementation of a Framework for a Health Information Survey System

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 January 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

There are many health and wellbeing self-assessment tools, but using paper-based versions of these tools limits the wider applicability of them in the current digital world. Hence many self-assessment tools are implemented as web/mobile applications, allowing efficient mass data collection. The current implementation approaches of computerising health and wellbeing self-assessment tools exclude these tools being re-used in a different setting, such as in a different research project or by another healthcare practitioner; where the collected data needs to be independent of the original implementation. This paper presents a framework that facilitates the implementation of health and wellbeing self-assessment tools as templates, much like an MS PowerPoint or Word template, allowing new instances of the tool to be easily created and data to be independent of the original implementation. This framework provides both a research and a clinical component. The research component gives the ability to collect data, view graphs to enable some basic analysis and the possibility to download the data for further analysis. The clinical component enables the delivery of relevant information and resources to clients/patients depending on the outcomes of the questionnaires. This can be used strategically to tailor information and interventions for the particular stage or category a client is at, and thereby avoiding irrelevant information and information overload for the client.

References

  1. Andrews, G. and T. Slade, Interpreting scores on the Kessler psychological distress scale (K10). Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2001. 25(6): p. 494--497.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Kessler, R.C., et al., Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological medicine, 2002. 32(6): p. 959--976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Anstey, K.J., et al., A self-report risk index to predict occurrence of dementia in three independent cohorts of older adults: the ANU-ADRI. PLoS One, 2014. 9(1): p. e86141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Sikkes, S.A., et al., Assessment of instrumental activities of daily living in dementia: diagnostic value of the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology, 2013. 26(4): p. 244--250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Vellas, B., et al., The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Nutrition, 1999. 15(2): p. 116--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. SurveyMonkey. SurveyMonkey 1999-2018; Available from: https://www.surveymonkey.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. LimeSurvey. Available from: https://www.limesurvey.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. REDCap. REDCap-Research Electronic Data Capture. Available from: https://projectredcap.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Weinstein, N. D., Sandman, P. M. & Blalock, S. J. 2008. The precaution adoption process model. In: GLANZ, K., RIMER, B. K. & VISWANATH, K. (eds.) Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Diclemente, C. 1998. Toward a Comprehensive, Transtheoretical Model of Change, Stages of Change and Addictive Behaviors. Treating Addictive Behaviors, 3--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemow, L., Costanza, M. E., Haddad, W. P., Luckmann, R., White, M. J., Klaus, D. & Stoddard, A. M. 2000. Underutilizers of mammography screening today: Characteristics of women planning, undecided about, and not planning a mammogram. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Mauck, K. F., Cuddihy, M. T., Trousdale, R. T., Pond, G. R., Pankratz, V. S. & Melton III, L. J. 2002. The Decision to Accept Treatment for Osteoporosis Following Hip Fracture: Exploring the Woman's Perspective Using a Stage-of-Change Model. Osteoporosis International, 13, 560--564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Design and Implementation of a Framework for a Health Information Survey System

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Other conferences
                  ACSW '19: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference
                  January 2019
                  486 pages
                  ISBN:9781450366038
                  DOI:10.1145/3290688

                  Copyright © 2019 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 29 January 2019

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article
                  • Research
                  • Refereed limited

                  Acceptance Rates

                  ACSW '19 Paper Acceptance Rate61of141submissions,43%Overall Acceptance Rate61of141submissions,43%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader