Literature DB >> 14727789

Methodological challenges associated with patient responses to follow-up longitudinal surveys regarding quality of care.

Katherine L Kahn1, Honghu Liu, John L Adams, Wen-Pin Chen, Diana M Tisnado, David M Carlisle, Ron D Hays, Carol M Mangione, Cheryl L Damberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate, using empirical data, methodological challenges associated with patient responses to longitudinal surveys regarding the quality of process of care and health status, including overall response rate, differential response rate, and stability of responses with time. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
SETTING: Primary patient self-report data were collected from 30,308 patients in 1996 and 13,438 patients in 1998 as part of a two-year longitudinal study of quality of care and health status of patients receiving care delivered by 63 physician organizations (physician groups) across three West Coast states. STUDY
DESIGN: We analyzed longitudinal, observational data collected by Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH) from patients aged 18-70 using a four-page survey in 1996 and a similar survey in 1998 to assess health status, satisfaction, use of services, and self-reported process of care. A subset of patients with self-reported chronic disease in the 1996 study received an enriched survey in 1998 to more fully detail processes of care for patients with chronic disease. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: We measured response rate overall and separately for patients with chronic disease. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of 1996 predictors on response to the follow-up 1998 survey. We compared process of care scores without and with nonresponse weights. Additionally, we measured stability of patient responses over time using percent agreement and kappa statistics, and examined rates of gender inconsistencies reported across the 1996 and 1998 surveys. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: In 1998, response rates were 54 percent overall and 63 percent for patients with chronic disease. Patient demographics, health status, use of services, and satisfaction with care in 1996 were all significant predictors of response in 1998, highlighting the importance of analytic strategies (i.e., application of nonresponse weights) to minimize bias in estimates of care and outcomes associated with longitudinal quality of care and health outcome analyses. Process of care scores weighted for nonresponse differed from unweighted scores (p<.001). Stability of responses across time was moderate, but varied by survey item from fair to excellent.
CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal analyses involving the collection of data from the same patients at two points in time provide opportunities for analysis of relationships between process and outcomes of care that cannot occur with cross-sectional data. We present empirical results documenting the scope of the problems and discuss options for responding to these challenges. With increasing emphasis in the United States on quality reporting and use of financial incentives for quality in the health care market, it is important to identify and address methodological challenges that potentially threaten the validity of quality-of-care assessments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14727789      PMCID: PMC1360965          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00194.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  22 in total

1.  The increasing importance of patient surveys. Now that sound methods exist, patient surveys can facilitate improvement.

Authors:  P D Cleary
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members.

Authors:  Floyd Jackson Fowler; Patricia M Gallagher; Vickie L Stringfellow; Alan M Zaslavsky; Joseph W Thompson; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 3.  A psycho-endocrinological overview of transsexualism.

Authors:  A Michel; C Mormont; J J Legros
Journal:  Eur J Endocrinol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 6.664

4.  Does the effect of respondent characteristics on consumer assessments vary across health plans?

Authors:  A M Zaslavsky; L Zaborski; P D Cleary
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.929

5.  Developing a reliable, valid, and feasible plan for quality-of-care measurement for cancer: how should we measure?

Authors:  Katherine L Kahn; Jennifer L Malin; John Adams; Patricia A Ganz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review.

Authors:  R H Brook; F A Appel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1973-06-21       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Nonresponse bias: does it affect measurement of clinician behavior?

Authors:  Leif I Solberg; Mary Beth Plane; Roger L Brown; Gail Underbakke; Patrick E McBride
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Factors affecting response rates to the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study survey.

Authors:  Alan M Zaslavsky; Lawrence B Zaborski; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Patient-centered processes of care and long-term outcomes of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  A M Fremont; P D Cleary; J L Hargraves; R M Rowe; N B Jacobson; J Z Ayanian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 6.473

View more
  16 in total

1.  Measuring quality in modern managed care.

Authors:  Harold S Luft; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Imputation of SF-12 health scores for respondents with partially missing data.

Authors:  Honghu Liu; Ron D Hays; John L Adams; Wen-Pin Chen; Diana Tisnado; Carol M Mangione; Cheryl L Damberg; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Does self-report data on HIV primary care utilization agree with medical record data for socially marginalized populations in the United States?

Authors:  Nancy L Sohler; Sharon M Coleman; Howard Cabral; Sylvie Naar-King; Carol Tobias; Chinazo O Cunningham
Journal:  AIDS Patient Care STDS       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 5.078

4.  Using predicted Spanish preference to target bilingual mailings in a mail survey with telephone follow-up.

Authors:  Marc N Elliott; David J Klein; Paul Kallaur; Julie A Brown; Ron D Hays; Nate Orr; Alan M Zaslavsky; Megan K Beckett; Sarah Gaillot; Carol A Edwards; Amelia M Haviland
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Selection bias in family reports on end of life with dementia in nursing homes.

Authors:  Jenny T van der Steen; Luc Deliens; Miel W Ribbe; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 2.947

6.  Does ambulatory process of care predict health-related quality of life outcomes for patients with chronic disease?

Authors:  Katherine L Kahn; Diana M Tisnado; John L Adams; Honghu Liu; Wen-Pin Chen; Fang Ashlee Hu; Carol M Mangione; Ronald D Hays; Cheryl L Damberg
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Factors affecting patients' trust and confidence in GPs: evidence from the English national GP patient survey.

Authors:  Joanne E Croker; Dawn R Swancutt; Martin J Roberts; Gary A Abel; Martin Roland; John L Campbell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England.

Authors:  Andrew Hutchings; Jenny Neuburger; Kirstin Grosse Frie; Nick Black; Jan van der Meulen
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Reliability of patient responses in pay for performance schemes: analysis of national General Practitioner Patient Survey data in England.

Authors:  Martin Roland; Marc Elliott; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Josephine Barbiere; Richard A Parker; Patten Smith; Peter Bower; John Campbell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-09-29

10.  The impact of socioeconomic status on changes in the general and mental health of women over time: evidence from a longitudinal study of Australian women.

Authors:  Jennifer Stewart Williams; Michelle Cunich; Julie Byles
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2013-04-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.