A Randomized Clinical Trial: Patient Satisfaction of Paper Versus Electronic Provider Feedback

Abstract

Importance: Minimal data compare patient satisfaction with completing paper versus electronic evaluations.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare patient satisfaction with completing paper versus electronic evaluations. Secondary objectives were assessing age, education, and socioeconomic status with comfort with technology; preference for evaluation type; and timeliness of completing evaluations.

Study design: This was a single-center randomized trial comparing paper versus electronic patient evaluations of health care providers. Study participation occurred at the end of clinic visits.

Results: Among 145 participants, 73 (50.3%) were analyzed as paper versus 72 (49.7%) as electronic. Groups were similar in age, race, education level, income, insurance type, technology comfort, and technology use. Groups were similar in finding ease (P = 0.99) and satisfaction (P = 0.76) with their randomized method. For participants randomized to paper, 34% preferred paper, 25% preferred electronic, and 41% had no preference. Electronic feedback took longer to complete (4.5 minutes vs 3.4 minutes, P < 0.001). Older participants took longer to complete the evaluation (4.5 minutes vs 3.2 minutes, P < 0.001), had less internet use (P = 0.01), and were less likely to own a computer (P = 0.03) than younger participants. There were differences by education level for comfort with technology (P = 0.007) and internet use (P = 0.016). There were no differences in ease of feedback completion or satisfaction when comparing age, education status, or income status.

Conclusions: Patients were satisfied with paper and electronic health care provider evaluations, regardless of age or other demographics. Evaluations were completed quickly during visits. Requesting feedback from patients via multiple modalities is feasible in a varied patient population.