Response rates for patient-reported outcomes using web-based versus paper questionnaires: comparison of two invitational methods in older colorectal cancer patients.
Response rates for patient-reported outcomes using web-based versus paper questionnaires: comparison of two invitational methods in older colorectal cancer patients.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.3741
复制
发表时间：
2015-05-07
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
van de Poll-Franse LV
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Horevoorts NJ;Vissers PA;Mols F;Thong MS;van de Poll-Franse LV
提高问卷的回答率是一个永恒的研究课题。今天，互联网可以很容易地用来快速收集数据。然而，在互联网上收集数据可能会导致有偏见的样本，因为不是每个人都能够访问或使用互联网。例如，老年人使用互联网的可能性要小得多。初始治疗后患者报告的结局和长期生存评估（PROFILES）登记研究提供了一个平台，用于收集基于网络和纸质问卷，并尝试不同的措施来提高应答率。本研究旨在探讨两种邀请方式对应答率的影响。我们的第二个目的是检查问卷管理模式（纸张或基于网络），特别是老年患者的偏好。为了测试这两种邀请方法，3406名年龄在18岁至85岁之间的结直肠癌患者收到了一份邀请，其中包含一个基于网络的问卷的访问代码。他们还可以要求一份纸质问卷，并附上回复卡（纸质可选组）。与此相反，179例随机选择的结直肠癌患者接受了纸质问卷的邀请（包括纸张组）。他们也可以选择填写基于网络的调查问卷与包括访问代码。纸质可选组和纸质包含组的应答率没有差异（73.14%，2491/3406和74.9%，134/179，P= 0.57）。在纸质可选组中，在线响应显著高于纸质包含组（41.23%，1027/2491 vs 12.7%，17/134，P<.001）。大多数在线受访者在第一次邀请后回复（95.33%，979/1027），显著高于纸质受访者（52.19%，764/1464，P<.001）。70岁及以上的受访者更经常选择填写纸质问卷（71.0%，677/954）。在最大年龄组（≥80岁）中，18.2%（61/336）的受访者填写了基于网络的问卷。邀请模式之间的响应率没有差异，这意味着研究人员可以在邀请时省略纸质问卷，而不会降低响应率。最好不要包括纸质调查表，因为更多的答卷人将填写网上调查表，这将导致更快地获得数据。然而，由于答卷人的偏好，在不久的将来不太可能完全取消纸质问卷。
Improving questionnaire response rates is an everlasting issue for research. Today, the Internet can easily be used to collect data quickly. However, collecting data on the Internet can lead to biased samples because not everyone is able to access or use the Internet. The older population, for example, is much less likely to use the Internet. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry offers a platform to collect Web-based and paper questionnaires and to try different measures to improve response rates. In this study, our aim was to study the influence of two methods of invitation on the response rate. Our second aim was to examine the preference of questionnaire mode of administration (paper or Web-based) for the older patient in particular. To test these two invitational methods, 3406 colorectal cancer patients between ages 18 and 85 years received an invitation containing an access code for the Web-based questionnaire. They could also request a paper questionnaire with an included reply card (paper-optional group). In contrast, 179 randomly selected colorectal cancer patients received a paper questionnaire with the invitation (paper-included group). They could also choose to fill out the Web-based questionnaire with the included access code. Response rates did not differ between the paper-optional and the paper-included groups (73.14%, 2491/3406 and 74.9%, 134/179, P=.57). In the paper-optional group, online response was significantly higher when compared to the paper-included group (41.23%, 1027/2491 vs 12.7%, 17/134, P<.001). The majority of online respondents responded after the first invitation (95.33%, 979/1027), which was significantly higher than the paper respondents (52.19%, 764/1464, P<.001). Respondents aged 70 years and older chose to fill out a paper questionnaire more often (71.0%, 677/954). In the oldest age group (≥80 years), 18.2% (61/336) of the respondents filled out a Web-based questionnaire. The lack of difference in response rates between invitation modes implies that researchers can leave out a paper questionnaire at invitation without lowering response rates. It may be preferable not to include a paper questionnaire because more respondents then will fill out a Web-based questionnaire, which will lead to faster available data. However, due to respondent preference, it is not likely that paper questionnaires can be left out completely in the near future.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Callas PW;Solomon LJ;Hughes JR;Livingston AE
通讯作者：
Livingston AE
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Hohwu, Lena;Lyshol, Heidi;Obel, Carsten
通讯作者：
Obel, Carsten
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Mols, Floortje;Denollet, Johan;Thong, Melissa S. Y.
通讯作者：
Thong, Melissa S. Y.
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Selwyn, N
通讯作者：
Selwyn, N
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Crabb, Rebecca M.;Rafie, Samantha;Weingardt, Kenneth R.
通讯作者：
Weingardt, Kenneth R.