Open Access

Brief communication: patient satisfaction with the use of tablet computers: a pilot study in two outpatient home dialysis clinics

Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease20141:22

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40697-014-0022-9

Received: 29 May 2014

Accepted: 8 August 2014

Published: 26 August 2014

Abstract

Background

Electronic capture of patients’ reports of their health is significant in clinical nephrology research because health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients with end-stage renal disease is compromised and assessment by patients of their HRQOL in practice is relatively uncommon.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with and time involved in administering HRQOL and symptom assessment measures using tablet computers in two outpatient home dialysis clinics.

Design

A cross-sectional observational study design was employed.

Setting

The study was conducted in two home dialysis clinics.

Patients

Fifty-six patients participated in the study; 35 males (63%) and 21 females (37%) with a mean age of 66 ± 12 (36-90 years old) were included. Forty-nine participants were on peritoneal dialysis (87%), 6 on home hemodialysis (11%), and 1 on nocturnal home hemodialysis (2%).

Measurements

Measures included the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Participant’s Level of Satisfaction in Using a Tablet Computer.

Methods

Using a tablet computer, participants completed the three measures. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated.

Results

Participants’ satisfaction with use of the tablet computer was high; 66% were “very satisfied”, 7% “satisfied”, 2% “slightly satisfied”, and 18% “neutral”. On the 7-point Likert-type scale, the mean satisfaction score was 5.11 (SD = 1.6). Mean time to complete the measures was: Level of Satisfaction 1.15 minutes (SD = 0.41), ESAS 2.55 minutes (SD = 1.04), and KDQOL 9.56 minutes (SD = 2.03); the mean time to complete all three instruments was 13.19 minutes (SD = 2.42). There were no significant correlations between level of satisfaction and age, gender, HRQOL, time taken to complete surveys, computer experience, or comfort with technology. Comfort with technology and computer experience were highly correlated, r = .7, p (one-tailed) < 0.01.

Limitations

Limitations include lack of generalizability because of a small self-selected sample of relatively healthy patients and a lack of psychometric testing on the measure of satisfaction.

Conclusions

Participants were satisfied with the platform and the time involved for completion of instruments was modest. Routine use of HRQOL measures for clinical purposes may be facilitated through use of tablet computers.

Keywords

Tablet computer iPad Patient reported outcome measures Electronic patient reported outcome measures Health-related quality of life Home dialysis Nursing

Abrégé

Contexte

Étant donné la nécessité d’intégrer à la pratique les résultats rapportés par les patients la saisie électronique des rapports de patients au sujet de leur santé est importante. Elle l’est d’autant plus en recherche clinique en néphrologie, en raison du fait que la qualité de vie liée à la santé (QVLS) des patients atteints d’une néphropathie en phase terminale est compromise et que l’évaluation de la QVLS par les patients est relativement peu commune dans la pratique.

Objectifs

L’objet de cette étude consistait à sonder la satisfaction des patients relativement à leur QVLS de même qu’au temps requis pour évaluer la QVLS et les symptômes, à l’aide de tablettes électroniques, dans deux cliniques externes de dialyse à domicile.

Type d’étude

Une étude observationnelle transversale.

Contexte

Cette étude a été menée dans deux cliniques de dialyse à domicile.

Participants

Cinquante-six patients ont participé à cette étude.

dont 35 hommes (63%) et 21 femmes (37%) âgés en moyenne de 66 ± 12 (36 à 90 ans). Quarante-neuf participants étaient en dialyse péritonéale (87%), 6 étaient en hémodialyse à domicile (11%), et 1 était en hémodialyse nocturne à domicile (2%).

Mesures

Les outils d’évaluation étudiés comprenaient la KDQOL-36 (qualité de vie des patients atteints de néphropathie-36) l’échelle d’évaluation des symptômes d’Edmonton (EESE), ainsi qu’une échelle de satisfaction des participants dans l’utilisation de tablettes électroniques.

Méthodes

À l’aide de tablettes électroniques les participants ont effectué les trois mesures. On a calculé la statistique descriptive et les corrélations entre deux variables.

Résultats

Le degré de satisfaction des participants quant à l’utilisation des tablettes électroniques était élevé

66% se sont dits « très satisfait » 7% « satisfait », 2% « plutôt satisfait », et 18% « neutre ». Sur une échelle de type Likert en 7 points, le degré de satisfaction moyen était de 5,11 (ÉT = 1,06). Le temps moyen requis pour effectuer les mesures était : Degré de satisfaction 1,15 minute (ÉT = 0,41), EESE 2,55 minutes (ÉT = 1,04), et KDQOL 9,56 minutes (ÉT = 2,03).

le temps moyen pour effectuer les trois mesures était : 13,19 minutes (ÉT = 2,42). Il n’existe aucune corrélation importante entre le degré de satisfaction et l’âge le sexe, la QVLS, le temps requis pour terminer les évaluations, l’expérience en informatique ou le degré de confort avec la technologie. Il existe une forte corrélation entre le degré de confort avec la technologie et l’expérience en informatique, r = 0,7, p (unilatéral) < 0,01.

Limites de l’étude

Les limites comprennent un manque de généralisabilité en raison du petit volume de l’échantillon dont les participants étaient autosélectionnés parmi des patients relativement sains, de même que l’absence de tests psychométriques sur le degré de satisfaction.

Conclusion

Les participants étaient satisfaits de la plateforme et du fait que le temps requis pour terminer les évaluations était modeste. Le recours régulier à des mesures de la QVLS à des fins cliniques pourrait être facilité par l’utilisation des tablettes électroniques. La facilité de collecte de données pourrait offrir des occasions de recourir aux données de QVLS dans le cadre des soins aux patients et dans les programmes d’amélioration de la qualité.

What was known before

Despite the knowledge that patients living with end stage renal disease have compromised health related quality of life, measurement of this phenomenon in clinical practice is rare.

What this adds

Health related quality of life measurement in clinical settings may be conducted expediently with the use of tablet computers. Participants’ overall satisfaction with the use of the tablet computers for completing the measures was generally high. Satisfaction was not related to age gender, time involved, experience, comfort, or health status.

Background

End stage renal disease (ESRD) significantly influences patients’ perceptions of their health and the quality of their lives. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is subjective and it can only be accurately assessed by the patient [1]. Although there is ample research identifying that HRQOL is compromised for patients living with ESRD [2],[3], measurement of HRQOL in clinical practice is relatively uncommon [4]. Use of computer-based technologies may facilitate use of these measures in practice, if they are acceptable to patients. Hence, the aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with use of the tablet computer for completion of HRQOL and symptom assessment measures in outpatient home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis clinics and to ascertain the time required to complete these measures. The research questions were: How satisfied are outpatient home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients with use of tablet computers to score HRQOL and symptom assessment measures? How long did it take for participants to complete the measures using tablet computers?

Recently, in the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) [5] mandated that every dialysis unit must routinely measure HRQOL of patients at least annually as a prerequisite for coverage. The rationale for this CMS requirement was based in part on the finding that lower HRQOL scores are good predictors of mortality and hospitalization [6],[7].

There is some recognition that HRQOL data could be useful to practitioners. Researchers have found that use of these data had a positive impact on communication between physicians and patients (without prolonging interactions) [8], helped physicians to identify symptoms that otherwise might have been unnoticed [9], and impacted healthcare professionals when patient reported outcome (PROs) were used as a management tool in an outpatient setting with a specific patient population [10]. However, use of HRQOL and other PROs has been limited because paper and pencil administration precludes rapid scoring and presentation of results. Routine HRQOL assessment, with the use of touch-screen computers, has been found to significantly improve nurses’ awareness of patients’ experiences of pain, level of functioning, and overall quality of life [11], and increase communication and management of patients, without prolonging the length of patient visits [12].

Researchers cannot necessarily assume that translations of PROs from paper to electronic versions are equivalent [13]–[15]. The need to test measurement equivalence is determined by the level of modification required. Usability testing encompasses formal documentation of respondents’ ability to use the chosen electronic platform, follow instructions, and answer the questions [13].

Methods

Study design

We employed a cross-sectional observational study design. We attended every home dialysis clinic held two/three times a week (in one center) or every second week (in the other center) over a three-month time period in two cities on the west coast of Canada. When patients came for their regularly scheduled clinic appointment, they were invited by a third party to participate in the study. If the person was interested, they were directed to approach the researcher who was seated in the waiting room area. Over the three-month period, 83 patients attended the two outpatient clinics, and 56 patients chose to participate (68% response rate). Typically, patients attend an outpatient clinic every three months, so all home dialysis patients in these two cities were screened for participation during this period of time.

Participants

Patients were invited to participate if they were on dialysis at home (either peritoneal or hemodialysis), over 19 years of age, and were willing to be enrolled in the study. Exclusion criteria included: mild or severe cognitive impairment, lack of English language proficiency, inability to read, and attendance at the clinic for a medical crisis. There was no requirement for patients to be knowledgeable regarding use of a tablet computer; the researcher provided a demonstration and was available to assist if needed. We attained ethics approval from the University of Alberta and the Vancouver Island Health Authority. Signed informed consent forms were obtained from all participants.

Instruments

Three survey instruments were used to collect data. The first was the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) [16], modified for renal patients [17],[18]. The second instrument was the KDQOL-36 developed by Hayes et al. [19]. The third instrument, Participant’s Level of Satisfaction in Using a Tablet Computer, was developed for the purposes of the study. It includes three items measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The instrument included the following questions: How satisfied were you with completing the two surveys on a tablet computer/portable device? How much computer experience do you have? How comfortable are you in using computer technology generally? Satisfaction was our focus because end-user satisfaction is the most frequently used measure of Information System/Information Technology success [20].

Tablet technology

The tablet computer used for this study was the iPad™ (iPad is a trademark of Apple, Inc). The ESAS and Participant’s Level of Satisfaction questionnaires were designed as a newly created application to be run on the FileMaker Go iPad app using iOS 7. The computer programmer constructed the application using FileMaker 12. It was designed for older adults with minimal computer experience. The app used a large font (32 point for the question, 36 point for the response), black writing on a white background, no graphics, and simple directions.

The KDQOL-36 was completed online through KDQOL Complete offered by Medical Education Institute, a non-profit organization devoted to helping people with chronic kidney disease manage and improve their own health [21]. KDQOL Complete is available for use in dialysis settings. It offers online scoring in real timea.

In this study, only minor modifications to the instruments were made for the electronic platform [13]. Specifically, respondents touched the screen instead of circling a number, and the number of items seen at one time on a screen was different compared to the number of items seen on a piece of paper. Satisfaction with use of the technology was assessed with the Participant’s Level of Satisfaction questionnaire. Time stamps were utilized in the tablet application and on the KDQOL Complete to track how long it took participants to complete each survey.

For this study, direct access to the health authority’s internet was not allowed. As a result, tablet computers with cellular capacity were used, and data collection for the KDQOL-36 proceeded using a 3G connection. On the two occasions that the 3G connection was dropped, a paper copy of the KDQOL-36 was used in the interim until connection was restored. Completion of the ESAS and Participant’s Level of Satisfaction questionnaires using the FileMaker Go tablet app did not require an internet connection. Data from the application was downloaded to a secure data repository.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation) were calculated for each item. Spearman’s correlation coefficient were used to assess relationships between pairs of variables. SPSS (version 21) was used.

Results

Characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1. The mean age was 66 years with a range from 38 to 91 years. Notably, only 2 out of 56 participants (4%) had previously used a tablet computer.
Table 1

Characteristics of participants

Clinical characteristics

 

Gender (M/F)

35 (63%)/21 (37%)

Age, years

66 ± 12

Diabetes

16 (29%)

Race

 

Caucasian

51 (91%)

First Nations

2 (3.5%)

Asian

1 (2%)

Hispanic

2 (3.5%)

Employment status

 

Retired due to age/preference

39 (70%)

Retired (disability)

7 (12%)

Medical leave of absence

6 (11%)

Full-time employee

3 (5%)

Homemaker

1 (2%)

Dialysis modality

 

Peritoneal dialysis

49 (87%)

Home hemodialysis

6 (11%)

Nocturnal home hemodialysis

1 (2%)

Computer experience*

 

None at all

8 (15%)

A little bit

9 (17%)

A little

8 (15%)

Average

15 (28%)

A little above average

3 (5%)

A lot

10 (18%)

An exceptional amount

1 (2%)

Comfort with computer technology*

 

Very uncomfortable

5 (9%)

Uncomfortable

7 (13%)

Fair

16 (30%)

Good

12 (22%)

Very comfortable

11 (20%)

Excellent

3 (6%)

Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.

*Responses are missing for two participants.

Participant satisfaction was high with 66% reporting that they were “very satisfied”, 7% “satisfied”, 2% “slightly satisfied”, and 18% “neutral”; 3.6% reported dissatisfaction. The mean satisfaction score was 5.11 (SD = 1.6) on the 7-point scale. Again, using a 7-point scale, the mean computer experience score was 2.56 (SD = 1.7), and comfort using computer technology was 2.48 (SD = 1.4). A total of 75% of participants reported they had between no computer experience and average experience, yet 78% said they had fair to excellent comfort with computer technology.

Bivariate correlations were examined between satisfaction and age, gender, time, experience, comfort, and the global health item from the KDQOL-36. Satisfaction with use of the tablet computers was not correlated with either experience or comfort. We hypothesized that more computer experience would be correlated with greater comfort with technology; a one-tailed Spearman’s correlation coefficient between comfort and experience was 0.7, which was statistically significant (p < 0.01).

The mean length of time to complete the questionnaires is reported in Table 2. Of the 56 participants, all but two of them completed all three surveys. As noted in Table 2, there were a number of missing or incorrect time stamps. The reason for this was that participants frequently did not complete a survey at one continuous point in time because of appointments with a healthcare professional during their visit to the outpatient clinic.
Table 2

Time (in Minutes) taken to complete surveys

Measure

Mean

SD

Range (in minutes)

n

Level of Satisfaction (3)

1.15

0.41

1-3

48

ESAS (11)

2.55

1.04

1-6

42

KDQOL-36

9.56

2.03

6-13

27

Total time for all 3 surveys

13.19

2.42

8-18

21

Discussion

Participants’ overall satisfaction with use of the tablet computer for completing the instruments was generally high and it seems that satisfaction is not related to age, gender, time involved, experience, comfort, and health status. Perhaps other contextual factors, such as design of the app, and interviewer instructions and support may have influenced their satisfaction. Because only 4% of the sample had ever used a tablet computer previously, initial instruction was required to use the device and respond to questions. It is likely that less instruction will be required for administration of the questionnaires using this platform at future visits. We anticipate that in the future, as electronic devices become more common and as baby-boomers enter retirement, less education/support for the use of tablet computers will be required for patients to use them in clinical settings.

Confirming our findings, Chang et al. [15] also concluded that age and previous computer experience did not explain acceptance of an electronic platform. Pouwer et al. [22] also found that e-PROs were very easy for research participants to use even if they had little computer experience.

Outpatient clinic settings are considered to be ideal for use of PRO feedback as a management tool with particular populations, such as ESRD; the course of action with targeted solutions may be clearer to practitioners, and there may be greater room for improvement of outcomes and reports of HRQOL with patients who present with advanced symptoms [10],[23].

Despite having a 68% response rate, the study was limited due to its small sample size. Data were collected from self-selected patients using a home dialysis modality and they were not representative of the larger ESRD population. Further, patients who were experiencing medical crises were not included, so healthier ESRD patients were overrepresented. The study was also limited in that it only included participants from one geographic area on the west coast of Canada. Another limitation is the lack of psychometric testing for the measure of satisfaction, which was developed for the purposes of the study and modeled on similar measures. Another concern was that in our study, 3.6% of participants reported that they were “very dissatisfied” with using the tablet. However, in the interviews that followed survey completion, these same participants said that they enjoyed using the technology, suggesting that they may have made errors in the rating. This error rate may be an area for future research pertaining to the use e-PROs.

Conclusion

We found that patient satisfaction was high with completion of HRQOL and symptom assessment measures on tablet computers. The time required to complete the surveys was modest. As electronic capture of patient report data becomes routine in healthcare settings, use of HRQOL assessment for clinical purposes may be facilitated through use of tablet computers. This is important both for practice and research settings where PRO results have the potential to be analyzed in real-time to facilitate patient management and to enhance communication between patients and healthcare providers [8]–[12],[15]. The ease of electronic capture of PROs may offer opportunities to use HRQOL data for patient care and/or quality improvement programs.

Endnote

aThe KDQOL Complete database is housed on a server in the United States, which means that under the US Patriot Act, there is a possibility that information about the participant could be accessed without their knowledge or consent by the US government. To preserve confidentiality of data, participants were only identified by their assigned ID codes on the KDQOL Complete website. Participants were also informed of this on the consent form.

Authors’ information

KSM, PhD, RN is a Postdoctoral Fellow through KRESCENT (Kidney Research Scientist Core Education and National Training Program), 2011-2014, in the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta. AM, PhD, RN, FCAHS is Dean and Professor of the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta.

Abbreviations

CMS: 

Centers for medicare and medicaid services

e-PRO: 

Electronic patient reported outcome

ESAS: 

Edmonton symptom assessment scale

ESRD: 

End stage renal disease

HRQOL: 

Health-related quality of life

KDQOL-36: 

Kidney disease quality of life

PRO: 

Patient reported outcome

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by KRESCENT and the Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Faculty of Nursing, Level 3, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy

References

  1. O’Connor R: Issues in the measurement of health-related quality of life (Working Paper 30). Centre for Health Program Evaluation, West Heidelberg, Australia; 1993.Google Scholar
  2. Finkelstein FO, Wuerth D, Finkelstein SH: Health related quality of life and the CKD patient: challenges for the nephrology community. Kidney Int 2009, 76: 946–952. 10.1038/ki.2009.307View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Fukuhara S, Yamazaki S, Hayashino Y, Green J: Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with end-stage renal disease: why and how. Nat Clin Pract Nephro 2007, 3: 352–353. 10.1038/ncpneph0510View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, Hess R, Miller DM, Reeve BB, Santana M: Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 2012, 21: 1305–1314. 10.1007/s11136-011-0054-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Medicare and medicaid programs: conditions for coverage for end-stage renal disease facilities, final rule. In ᅟ. ;2008 , [http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CFCsAndCoPs/downloads/ESRDfinalrule0415.pdf]
  6. Lowry EG, Curtin RB, LePain N, Schatell D: Medical outcomes study short form 36: a consistent and powerful predictor of morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2003, 41: 1286–1292. 10.1016/S0272-6386(03)00361-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Mapes DL, Lopes AA, Satayathum S, McCullough KP, Goodkin DA, Locatelli F, Port FK: Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization: the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study (DOPPS). Kidney Int 2003, 64: 339–349. 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00072.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, Brown PM, Lynch P, Brown JM, Selby PJ: Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized control trial. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22: 714–724. 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Aktas A, Hullihen B, Shrotriya S, Thomas S, Walsh D, Estfan B: Connected health: cancer symptom and quality-of-life assessment using a tablet computer: A pilot study. Am J Hosp Palliat Me 2013, ᅟ: ᅟ. advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1049909113510963Google Scholar
  10. Boyce MB, Browne JP: Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res 2013, 22: 2265–2278. 10.1007/s11136-013-0390-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Hilarius DL, Kloeg PH, Gundy CM, Aaronson NK: Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice: a community hospital-based intervention study. Cancer 2008, 113: 628–637. 10.1002/cncr.23623View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Santana M-J, Feeny D, Johnson JA, McAlister FA, Kim D, Weinkauf J, Lien DC: Assessing the use of health-related quality of life measures in the routine clinical care of lung-transplant patients. Qual Life Res 2010, 19: 371–379. 10.1007/s11136-010-9599-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, Basch E: Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value Health 2009, 12: 419–429. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Shields A, Gwaltney C, Tiplady B, Paty J, Shiffman S: Grasping the FDA’s PRO guidance: what the agency requires to support the selection of patient reported outcome instruments. Appl Clin Trials 2006, 15: 69–72.Google Scholar
  15. Chang Y-J, Chang C-H, Peng C-L, Wu H-C, Lin H-C, Wang J-Y, Li T-C, Yeh Y-C, Liang W-M: Measurement equivalence and feasibility of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: paper-and-pencil versus touch-screen administration. Health Qual Life Out 2014, 12: 1–10. 10.1186/1477-7525-12-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Eduardo B, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Pall Care 1991, 7: 6–9.Google Scholar
  17. Davison SN, Jhandri GS, Johnson JA: Cross-sectional validity of a modified Edmonton symptom assessment system in dialysis patients: a simple assessment of symptom burden. Kidney Int 2006, 69: 1621–1625. 10.1038/sj.ki.5000184View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Davison SN, Jhangri GS, Johnson JA: Longitudinal validation of a modified Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS) in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transpl 2006, 21: 3189–3195. 10.1093/ndt/gfl380View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, Coons SJ, Carter WB: Development of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) instrument. Qual Life Res 1994, 3: 329–338. 10.1007/BF00451725View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Aggelidis VP, Chatzoglou PD: Hospital information systems: measuring end user computing satisfaction (EUCS). J Biomed Inform 2012, 45: 566–579. 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.02.009View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. : Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) Complete. Inᅟ. ; , [http://www.kdqol-complete.org/]
  22. Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, Heine RJ, Brand AN: A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the well-being questionnaire (WBQ) and the diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 1998, 7: 33–38. 10.1023/A:1008832821181View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Espallargues M, Valderas JM, Alonso J: Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med Care 2000, 38: 175–186. 10.1097/00005650-200002000-00007View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Schick-Makaroff and Molzahn; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.