Assessing inner-city patients' hospital experiences - A controlled trial of telephone interviews versus mailed surveys
Assessing inner-city patients' hospital experiences - A controlled trial of telephone interviews versus mailed surveys
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005650-199701000-00006
复制
发表时间：
1997-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Tierney, WM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harris, LE;Weinberger, M;Tierney, WM
目标.获得准确的和代表性的以病人为中心的数据可能是困难的贫困，内城的病人，因为不断变化的地址，可变的访问电话，以及较高的文盲率比人口中，许多调查工具的开发和测试。关于邮寄调查与电话访谈相比有用性的假设可能对城市贫民不成立。因此，确定最有效的调查管理模式，在这一人群成为一个重要的方法问题。对一家城市教学医院的住院医疗服务出院患者进行了一项随机试验，以比较电话访谈与邮寄自我管理的详细工具，用于测量患者的医院护理经验。我们的主要结果是响应率，缺失数据和数据收集成本。如果患者未出院回家或精神或身体无法完成邮寄或电话采访，则将其排除在外。研究助理在住院期间联系符合条件的患者，告知他们出院后调查，并获得当前的电话号码和地址，然后患者随机接受116项满意度调查，通过两种调查方法之一：邮件优先（邮寄调查，通过电话随访非应答者）或电话优先（电话采访，通过邮件随访非应答者）。在入组的252例患者中，130例被随机分配到邮件优先方法和122例电话优先方法，电话优先方法的应答率（73%）高于邮件优先方法（50%; P < 0.0001）。与邮件优先方法（7.1 +/- 12.3; P < 0.001）相比，电话优先方法获得的调查中不涉及跳跃模式的项目的缺失数据较少（0.7 +/- 2.39），并且每个完成的调查费用低42%（26.32美元对37.35美元; P < 0.0001）。在这项由城市教学医院提供服务的患者的调查中，与使用邮寄调查之后进行备份电话访谈的方法相比，电话访谈与邮件随访的策略被证明成本更低，并且获得了更高的回复率和更完整的数据。此外，我们认为，与文献中报告的类似人群相比，电话访谈的应答率提高是将调查告知住院患者并获得医院电话号码和地址的结果。
OBJECTIVES. Obtaining accurate and representative patient-centered data may be difficult among poor, inner-city patients because of changing addresses, variable access to telephones, and a higher prevalence of illiteracy than in the populations in which many survey instruments were developed and tested. Assumptions about the usefulness-of mailed surveys versus telephone interviews may not hold for the urban poor. Therefore, identifying the most efficient mode of survey administration in this population becomes an important methodological question.METHODS. The conducted a randomized trial of patients discharged from the inpatient medicine service of an urban teaching hospital to compare telephone interview with mailed self-administration of a detailed instrument for measuring patients' experiences with hospital tare. Our primary outcomes were response rate, missing data, and data collection costs. Patients were excluded if they were not discharged to home or were mentally or physically unable to complete mailed or telephone interviews. The research assistant contacted eligible patients while hospitalized, informed them of the postdischarge survey, and obtained current phone numbers and addresses, Patients then were randomized to receive a 116-item satisfaction survey via one of two survey methods: mail-first (mailed surveys with follow-up on nonrespondents by telephone) or telephone-first (telephone interviews with follow-up of nonrespondents by mail).RESULTS. Of the 252 patients Enrolled, 130 were randomized to the mail-first and 122 to the telephone-first method, Response rates were higher with the telephone-first (73%) compared with the mail-first method (50%; P < 0.0001). Surveys obtained by the telephone-first method had fewer missing data (0.7 +/- 2.39) for those items not involved in skip patterns compared with the mail-first method (7.1 +/- 12.3; P < 0.001) and were 42% less expensive per completed survey ($26.32 verses $37.35; P < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONS. In this survey of patients served by an urban teaching hospital, a strategy of telephone interviews with mail follow-up proved less expensive and yielded a higher response rate with more complete data than using a method where mailed surveys were followed by back-up telephone interviews. In addition, we believe that the Improved response rate for telephone interviews compared with those reported in the literature for similar populations is the result of informing inpatients of the survey and obtaining telephone numbers and addresses in the hospital.