Adapting a patient satisfaction instrument for low literate and Spanish-speaking populations: Comparison of three formats
Adapting a patient satisfaction instrument for low literate and Spanish-speaking populations: Comparison of three formats
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.026
复制
发表时间：
2008-10-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Asch, David A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shea, Judy A.;Guerra, Carmen E.;Asch, David A.
目的：将消费者对医疗保健提供者和系统评估 2.0 调查 (CAHPS) 印刷版的答复与插图增强格式和基于电话的交互式语音答复格式的答复进行比较。方法：首先，完成 2015 年等待初级保健就诊的成年患者：人口统计信息。功能健康素养测试（S-TOFHLA）。 CAHPS 采用三种格式之一：印刷版、插图版或交互式语音。第二个样本由 4800 名活跃患者组成，随机接受其他形式。结果：图解形式 (31.3%) 和印刷形式 (30.4%) 的响应率显着高于交互式语音形式 (18.1%)。图解格式的结果与传统文本版本相当，但低识字率组和高识字率组都需要大约 2 分钟才能完成。交互式语音格式几乎没有无效的响应，但该格式与较低的 CAHPS 满意度得分相关。 结论：尽管我们付出了大量努力来制作适合识字能力有限的个人的格式，但令人惊讶的是，我们发现这两种替代格式都没有一致的优势。实际上。交互式语音格式的满意度得分和回复率较低。实践意义：从业者需要确保他们使用的健康工具符合消费者的读写能力和交付偏好。缺乏图示形式的好处并不支持对这些格式的资源进行投资来衡量满意度。交互式语音响应值得更多研究——分数较低的人注册或使用电话的机会有限。刺激还是真实信号？ (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 保留所有权利。
Objective: To compare responses to print versions of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems 2.0 survey (CAHPS) to those for an illustration enhanced format and a telephone based interactive voice response format.Methods: First, 2015 adult patients awaiting primary care visits completed: demographic information. Test of Functional Health Literacy (S-TOFHLA). CAHPS in one of three formats: print, illustrated, or interactive voice. A second sample of 4800 active patients was randomized to receive alternative formats.Results: Response rates for the illustrated (31.3%) and print (30.4%) formats were significantly higher than for the interactive voice format (18.1%). The results of the illustrated format were comparable to the traditional text version, but required about 2 min more to complete by both low and high literacy groups. There were almost no invalid responses for the interactive voice format, but the format was associated with lower CAHPS satisfaction scores.Conclusion: Despite extensive efforts to produce formats tailored to individuals with limited literacy, surprisingly we found no consistent advantages to either alternative format. In fact. the interactive voice format yielded lower satisfaction scores and lower response rates.Practice implications: Practitioners need to ensure the health instruments they use are aligned with literacy skills and delivery preferences of their consumers. The lack of benefit of the illustrated form does not Support investment Of resources in these formats to measure satisfaction. The interactive voice response deserves more study-do lower scores register limited access to Or use of telephones. irritation or true signal? (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.