提高急诊反应率的方法——一项随机可行性研究

Megan Mathews, L. Parast, Anagha Tolpadi, M. Elliott, Elizabeth Flow-Delwiche, Kirsten M. Becker
{"title":"提高急诊反应率的方法——一项随机可行性研究","authors":"Megan Mathews, L. Parast, Anagha Tolpadi, M. Elliott, Elizabeth Flow-Delwiche, Kirsten M. Becker","doi":"10.29115/SP-2019-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Standard single survey mode approaches, such as mail-only or telephone-only, generally produce lower response rates than sequential mixed mode (SMM) approaches. SMM approaches may be particularly important when lower response propensities and/or poor contact information exist, as with emergency department (ED) patients. Results were examined from a randomized feasibility study testing five survey administration modes among ED patients who are discharged-to-community. A total of 4,017 discharged patients from eight EDs during February 2016 were randomized in equal numbers to five modes: on-site distribution of a paper survey; mail notification of a web survey; email notification of a web survey; two-stage SMM (mailed survey with telephone follow-up); and three-stage SMM (email notification of a web survey with mail follow-up and then telephone follow-up). Sampled patients received a 43-item instrument focusing on ED patient experience. The two-stage SMM, commonly used for other patient experience surveys, was the reference mode. Three-stage SMM had a higher response rate (30.7%) than two-stage SMM (25.3%); the other three experimental modes had significantly lower response rates (0.8–9.6%; p<0.001 for all comparisons). On-site distribution was difficult to operationalize, possibly promoting selection bias. Valid email capture rates ranged from 4.0% to 48.3% by hospital and 30.1% overall, even though participating hospitals reported capture rates of at least 20%; the odds of having a valid email address were significantly lower for older and male patients. Findings highlight the limitations of web-only and on-site approaches, and identify SMM with a web-based component as a promising approach for survey administration in the ED setting.","PeriodicalId":74893,"journal":{"name":"Survey practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods for Improving Response Rates in an Emergency Department Setting – A Randomized Feasibility Study\",\"authors\":\"Megan Mathews, L. Parast, Anagha Tolpadi, M. Elliott, Elizabeth Flow-Delwiche, Kirsten M. Becker\",\"doi\":\"10.29115/SP-2019-0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Standard single survey mode approaches, such as mail-only or telephone-only, generally produce lower response rates than sequential mixed mode (SMM) approaches. SMM approaches may be particularly important when lower response propensities and/or poor contact information exist, as with emergency department (ED) patients. Results were examined from a randomized feasibility study testing five survey administration modes among ED patients who are discharged-to-community. A total of 4,017 discharged patients from eight EDs during February 2016 were randomized in equal numbers to five modes: on-site distribution of a paper survey; mail notification of a web survey; email notification of a web survey; two-stage SMM (mailed survey with telephone follow-up); and three-stage SMM (email notification of a web survey with mail follow-up and then telephone follow-up). Sampled patients received a 43-item instrument focusing on ED patient experience. The two-stage SMM, commonly used for other patient experience surveys, was the reference mode. Three-stage SMM had a higher response rate (30.7%) than two-stage SMM (25.3%); the other three experimental modes had significantly lower response rates (0.8–9.6%; p<0.001 for all comparisons). On-site distribution was difficult to operationalize, possibly promoting selection bias. Valid email capture rates ranged from 4.0% to 48.3% by hospital and 30.1% overall, even though participating hospitals reported capture rates of at least 20%; the odds of having a valid email address were significantly lower for older and male patients. Findings highlight the limitations of web-only and on-site approaches, and identify SMM with a web-based component as a promising approach for survey administration in the ED setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2019-0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2019-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

标准的单一调查模式方法,如仅邮件或仅电话,通常比顺序混合模式(SMM)方法产生更低的响应率。当存在较低的反应倾向和/或不良的联系信息时,如急诊科(ED)患者,SMM方法可能特别重要。结果来自一项随机可行性研究,该研究测试了五种调查管理模式在出院到社区的ED患者中。将2016年2月8家急诊科的4017例出院患者随机分为五种模式:现场发放纸质调查;网络调查的邮件通知;网络调查的电子邮件通知;两阶段SMM(邮寄调查+电话随访);三阶段SMM(网络调查的电子邮件通知,邮件跟进,然后电话跟进)。抽样患者接受了一项43项的仪器,重点关注急诊科患者的体验。两阶段SMM是参考模式,通常用于其他患者体验调查。三期SMM的有效率(30.7%)高于两期SMM (25.3%);其他3种实验模式的应答率显著低于前者(0.8 ~ 9.6%;所有比较P <0.001)。现场分配难以操作,可能会导致选择偏差。有效的电子邮件捕获率从4.0%到48.3%不等,整体为30.1%,尽管参与医院报告的捕获率至少为20%;老年患者和男性患者拥有有效电子邮件地址的几率明显较低。研究结果强调了纯网络和现场方法的局限性,并将基于网络的SMM组件确定为ED设置中调查管理的有前途的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methods for Improving Response Rates in an Emergency Department Setting – A Randomized Feasibility Study
Standard single survey mode approaches, such as mail-only or telephone-only, generally produce lower response rates than sequential mixed mode (SMM) approaches. SMM approaches may be particularly important when lower response propensities and/or poor contact information exist, as with emergency department (ED) patients. Results were examined from a randomized feasibility study testing five survey administration modes among ED patients who are discharged-to-community. A total of 4,017 discharged patients from eight EDs during February 2016 were randomized in equal numbers to five modes: on-site distribution of a paper survey; mail notification of a web survey; email notification of a web survey; two-stage SMM (mailed survey with telephone follow-up); and three-stage SMM (email notification of a web survey with mail follow-up and then telephone follow-up). Sampled patients received a 43-item instrument focusing on ED patient experience. The two-stage SMM, commonly used for other patient experience surveys, was the reference mode. Three-stage SMM had a higher response rate (30.7%) than two-stage SMM (25.3%); the other three experimental modes had significantly lower response rates (0.8–9.6%; p<0.001 for all comparisons). On-site distribution was difficult to operationalize, possibly promoting selection bias. Valid email capture rates ranged from 4.0% to 48.3% by hospital and 30.1% overall, even though participating hospitals reported capture rates of at least 20%; the odds of having a valid email address were significantly lower for older and male patients. Findings highlight the limitations of web-only and on-site approaches, and identify SMM with a web-based component as a promising approach for survey administration in the ED setting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信