Table 4.
Summary of study results related to ease of use.
| Study (year) | Electronic data collection modality | Conventional data collection modality | Conclusion |
| Allena et al (2012) [25] | Easy to understand: mean 8.7/10; easy to use: mean 8.9/10 | Easy to understand: mean 8.3/10; easy to use: mean 7.9/10 | Electronic format significantly (P<.01) easier. |
| Athale et al (2004) [26] | 9/19 (47%) rated computer as easier | 5/19 (26%) rated paper as easier | Not reported |
| Bandarian-Balooch et al (2017) [27] | Ease of use (all electronic methods combined): mean 6.58/10 | Ease of use: mean 6.17/10 | The long-paper diary was rated as significantly (P<.02) less easy to use than the other diaries |
| Bedson et al (2019) [28] | 100% reported easy to read | Not reported | Not reported |
| Bishop et al (2010) [29] | 17 comments on easy completion | 16 comments on easy completion | Not reported |
| Blum et al (2014) [30] | 79% reported no difficulty with using electronic method | Not reported | Not reported |
| Cook et al 2004 [34] | 39% of patients stated easier to understand and complete | 24% of patients stated easier to understand and complete | Not reported |
| Freynhagen et al (2006) [37] | No issues with the use of the PDAa | Not reported | Not reported |
| Gaertner et al (2004) [38] | 54% found more complicated | 42% found more complicated | No significant difference between modalities |
| Garcia-Palacios et al (2013) [39] | 15/40 (37%) rated easier to use | 4/40 (10%) rated easier to use | Not reported |
| Jaatun et al (2014) [42] | Both physicians found electronic pain reports easier to read and evaluate than the paper maps. | Not reported | Not reported |
| Koho et al (2014) [49] | 64/93 (69%) rated easy to complete, 10/93 (11%) rated difficult to complete | 63/93 (68%) rated easy to complete, 10/93 (11%) rated difficult to complete | Not reported |
| MacKenzie et al (2011) [51] | 54/63 (85.7%) rated easy to complete | Not reported | Not reported |
| Marceau et al (2007) [52] | 32/36 (89%) rated easy to understand and use; 30/36 (83%) rated easy to record data | 27/36 (75%) rated easy to understand and use; 3/36 (8%) rated easy to record data | No significant difference in ease of understanding and use. Significantly (P<.001) higher ease of recording data rating for electronic modality. |
| Marceau et al (2010) [53] | 29/43 (67.4%) rated easy to use and understand | 32/35 (91.4%) rated easy to use and understand | Significantly (P=.01) higher ease of use and understanding for paper modality. |
| Palermo et al (2004) [56] | 15/18 (83%) rated easy or very easy to remember to fill out | 8/15 (53%) rated easy or very easy to remember to fill out | No significant difference between modalities |
| Pawar et al (2017) [57] | 70.58% rated as easy to use | Not reported | Not reported |
| Serif et al (2005) [62] | Some users, especially those with arthritis and/or poorer eyesight encountered difficulties in using the electronic modality, but ease of use was general consensus | Not reported | Not reported |
| Stinson et al (2008 and 2014) [5,24] | Majority found the electronic format easy to use | Not reported | Not reported |
| Stinson et al (2012) [63] | 19/21 (91%) of parents the computer or paper to be easier to understand than the handheld device | Not reported | Significant difference (P=.03) in opinion of ease of use |
| Stinson et al (2015) [7] | 94.6% and 91.7% of participants in the 2- and 3-week studies, respectively, found electronic diary interfered only minimally with activities | Not reported | Not reported |
| Stomberg et al (2012) [64] | Mean difficulty in using electronic modality: 1.31/10 | No difficulties with use described | Not reported |
| Suso-Ribera et al (2018) [67] | 100% of participants found the app extremely easy to use | Not reported | Not reported |
| Wæhrens et al (2015) [72] | Not reported | None found paper easier to use | Not reported |
aPDA: personal digital assistant.