EFFICACY OF COMPUTER BASED DEVELOPMENTAL PEDIATRIC SCREENING (CBDPS) Miral damani * 1 , Roshani Hadavani 2 , Priyanshu Rathod 2 . * 1  MPT, lecturer, RK university, Rajkot, Gujarat, India. 2  Pediatric clinical physiotherapist, RK university, Rajkot, Gujarat, India. 3   PT, PhD, Dean, School Of Physiotherapy, RK University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India. Address:  Dr. Miral Damani, MPT, Lecturer, RK University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India. E-Mail:  miral.damani@rku.ac.in ABSTACT: Background:   Computer   has   provided   a   broad   spectrum   of   its   applications   in   medical   science   including   documentation,   data   management, data   analysis   as   well   as   research   and   development.   However,   long   term   physiotherapy   and   its   follow   up   in   clinical   practice,   documentation of   assessment   of   patients   is   one   of   the   most   common   requirements   for   physiotherapists.   To   meet   this   requirement,   computer   has   shown meaningful   application   in   assessment   in   physiotherapy   practice.   However,   traditional   paper   based   assessment   practice   is   even   well established   and   challenging   computer   based   assessment   practice.   The   availability   of   such   software   will   ease   the   pediatric   physiotherapy practice.   Computer   based   software   is   available   for   pediatric   screening,   but   the   challenge   is   -   does   the   software   serves   as   equal   to   paper based screening. Therefore, we would like to test the efficiency of computer based DPS software as compared to traditional PBDPS. Materials   and   Methods:   Developmental   pediatric   screening   software,   laptop,   developmental   pediatric   assessment   form,   and   feedback form.   Study   Design:   Observational   cross   sectional   study.   Inclusion   criteria:   Physiotherapists   practicing   pediatric   physiotherapy   since   last one   year.   Procedure:   In   the   context   of   the   expert   group,   60   therapists   were   well   explained   about   the   assessment   of   paper   and   computer based   method   (training   of   the   software   was   given)   with   feedback   process.   Physiotherapists   required   to   assess   the   patients   by   paper   and computer based assessment and fill up the feedback form for their valuable responses. Result   and   discussion:   On   analyzing   the   scores   from   feedback   form,   we   have   observed   that   administration   (1.68   out   of   3)   and   time   taken (1.7   out   of   3)   has   shown   less   impact   for   CBDPS   as   compared   to   PBDPS.      Whereas,   data   analysis   (2.45   out   of   3),   data   storage   (2.53   out   of   3), transferring   and   editing   data   (2.63   out   of   3),   reviewing   the   condition   periodically   (2.65   out   of   3)   has   shown   efficient   scores.   Mean   years   of experience of the physiotherapists is 1.6 years. Conclusion:   In   context   to   broad   spectrum   of   computer   applications   in   medical   science   and   availing   advantages   of   information   and technology, CBDPS – a model must be taken into consideration for prospective studies in physiotherapy p ractice. KEY WORDS: Paper based assessment, Computer based assessment, Developmental pediatric screening. References 1 . Ammenwerth   and   Keizer.   An   Inventory   of   Evaluation   Studies   of   Information   Technology   in   Health   Care-Trends   in   Evaluation   Research   1982-2002. Methods of Information in Medicine. 2005;44:44-56. 2 . Beynon-Davies, Lloyd-Williams. When health information systems fail. Top Health Information Manage 1999;20(1):66-79. 3 . Forsythe,   Buchanan.   Broadening   our   approach   to   evaluating   medical   information   systems.   In:   Clayton   P,   editor.   15th   Annual   Methods   Information Medicine. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992: 8-12. 4 . Friedman C, Wyatt J. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer; 1997. 5 . Heathfield,    Peel,    Hudson    et    al.    Evaluating    Large    Scale    Health    Information    Systems:    From    Practice    Towards    Theory.        Masys    editor.    Annual    Fall Symposium. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus; 1997:116-20. 6 . Moehr JR. Evaluation: salvation or nemesis of medical informatics? Jouranl of Computer methods and Biomedicine.  2002;32(3):113-25. 7 . James   Lustig,   Edward   Gotlieb,   Larry   Deutsch.   Special   Requirements   for   Electronic   Medical   Record   Systems   in   Pediatrics.   American   Academy   of Pediatrics. 2001;25:284-93. 8 . Shiffman. Informatics and computers in pediatrics.  Ambulatory Pediatrics. 1999:62-67 9 . Dickens, Lighter, Lustig. Computers in the Primary Care Office. American Academy of Pediatrics; 1995. 1 0 . Taragin,   Lauer,   Savir.   HCFA   documentation   guidelines   and   the   need   for   discrete   data:   a   golden   opportunity   for   applied   health   informatics.   Proceeding of American medical informatics association Annual Fall Symposiam. 1998;653-657 1 1 . Coffey, Ball, Johantgen. The case for national health data standards. Health Affairs (Millwood) 1997;16:58-72. 1 2 . Carpathia.  Research on 5 Benefits of EMR vs. Paper Medical Records. Dissertation, institute of pediatric health. Boston University, Boston, 2013. 1 3 . Jolt, Sacha, Astrid. Paper versus computer: feasibility of an electronic medical record in general pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2006;117(1):15-21. 1 4 .  Bushnell, Martin , Parasuraman. Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. 2003;40(7):751-62.