Journals / Neurological sciences and neurophysiology (Online) / 2019 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 3

Does a smartphone application make it easier to evaluate the dizziness handicap inventory?

Pages
148–151
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The present study showed that the DHI could be applied more quickly, more comfortably, and safely (with higher accuracy) using the e-DHI smartphone application.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) is a questionnaire that is frequently used for patients with vestibular system disorders.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Three of the 25 doctors were excluded from the study due to a calculation error with the conventional evaluation method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The present study showed that the DHI could be applied more quickly, more comfortably, and safely (with higher accuracy) using the e-DHI smartphone application.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) is a questionnaire that is frequently used for patients with vestibular system disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and reliability of the “e-DHI” smartphone application, which calculates DHI scores. Methods: Web-based iOS and Android smartphone applications (e-DHI) were developed to evaluate the DHI. After completing the questionnaire, the DHI total score and subscores (physical, functional and emotional) were assessed and results were noted and sent to the e-mail address. Twenty-five otorhinolaryngologists and neurologists were enrolled in the study to apply the DHI to the authors sequentially using the conventional assessment method and the e-DHI (randomized by priority). The questionnaire was applied by both methods, and for each method, the time required to complete the questionnaire, to calculate the DHI score, and the total time required were noted. Results: Three of the 25 doctors were excluded from the study due to a calculation error with the conventional evaluation method. The mean total time required for completing and scoring the questionnaire was shorter when the DHI was evaluated with the e-DHI application (160±32.2 seconds) compared with the classic assessment method (289±65.9 seconds) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two methods in terms of the time taken to complete the questionnaire (p=0.269). However, the calculation periods were statistically significantly shorter with the digital application compared with the conventional method (p<0.001). Conclusion: The present study showed that the DHI could be applied more quickly, more comfortably, and safely (with higher accuracy) using the e-DHI smartphone application.

🔖

Cite This Article

UZ, U., UZ, D., ÇELİK, O. (2019). Does a smartphone application make it easier to evaluate the dizziness handicap inventory?. Neurological sciences and neurophysiology (Online), Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 3, 148–151. https://ajindex.com/articles/290589

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. WHO Executive Board, WHO eHealth Resolution. Available from: https://www.who.int/healthacademy/news/en/, 2005-2017
  2. Cameron JD, Ramaprasad A, Syn T. An ontology of and road- map for mHealth research. Int J Med Inform 2017; 100: 16-25. [CrossRef] 3. Bashi N, Fatehi F, Fallah M, Walters D, Karunanithi M. Self-man-agement education through mhealth: review of strategies and structures. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018; 6: e10771. [CrossRef] 4. Neuhauser HK. The epidemiology of dizziness and vertigo. Handb Clin Neurol 2016; 137: 67-82. [CrossRef] 5. Jacobson GP, Newman CW. The development of the dizziness handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 116: 424-427. [CrossRef] 6. Canbal M, Cebeci S, Çamur Duyan G, Kurtaran H, Arslan İ. Study of reliability and validity for the Turkish version of dizziness handicap inventory. TJFM&PC 2016; 10: 19-24. [CrossRef] 7. Jones TL, Baxter MA, Khanduja V. A quick guide to survey re-search. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013; 95: 5-7. [CrossRef] 8. Regmi PR, Waithaka E, Paudyal A, Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E. Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire sur-veys. Nepal J Epidemiol 2016; 6: 640-644. [CrossRef] 9. Paglialonga A, Tognola G, Pinciroli F. Apps for hearing science and care. Am J Audiol 2015; 24: 293-298. [CrossRef] 10. Derin S, Cam OH, Beydilli H, Acar E, Elicora SS, Sahan M. Initial as-sessment of hearing loss using a mobile application for audiolog-ical evaluation. J Laryngol Otol 2016; 130: 248-251. [CrossRef] 11. Kam AC, Sung JK, Lee T, Wong TK, van Hasselt A. Improving mo­ bile phone speech recognition by personalized amplification: application in people with normal hearing and mild-to-moder­ ate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2017; 38: e85-e92. [CrossRef] 12. Liu X, Wang R, Zhou D, Hong Z. Feasibility and acceptability of smartphone applications for seizure self-management in China: Questionnaire study among people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Be-hav 2016; 55: 57-61. [CrossRef] 13. Kos D, Raeymaekers J, Van Remoortel A, et al. Electronic visual analogue scales for pain, fatigue, anxiety and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis using smartphone and tablet: a reliability and feasibility study. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 1215-1225. [CrossRef] 14. Schmidt W, Sarran C, Ronan N, et al. The weather and ménière's disease: a longitudinal analysis in the UK. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38: 225-233. [CrossRef] 15. Schlee W, Pryss RC, Probst T, et al. Measuring the moment-to-moment­ variability of tinnitus: the t