Literature DB >> 15725984

Quantitative and qualitative differences between handout and mailed patient satisfaction surveys.

Robert K Gribble1, Cherie Haupt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction surveys are widely used to measure patients' opinions of the quality of the health care they have received. There are a variety of methods for distributing patient satisfaction surveys. Different distribution methods may yield significantly different satisfaction ratings.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare survey ratings obtained via 2 distribution methods: handout versus mailed.
DESIGN: Patients were randomized to receive either a handout survey or a mailed survey.
SUBJECTS: Patients who had an appointment with a family practice provider in one of the regional outpatient centers of a large medical clinic during a 3-week period. MEASURES: An 11-item visit-specific patient satisfaction survey was used to survey patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: Handout surveys yielded higher satisfaction scores than mailed surveys. The response rate was higher with handout surveys than with mailed surveys. However, handout surveys were returned with more skipped questions, a lower variation in ratings, and fewer written comments than the mailed surveys.
CONCLUSIONS: Both quantitative and qualitative differences between the 2 distribution methods were revealed. Attempts to compare data obtained from the 2 different distribution methods need to be approached with caution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15725984     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  12 in total

1.  Pediatric interventional radiology clinic - how are we doing?

Authors:  Jonathan Rubenstein; Julie C Zettel; Eric Lee; Michelle Cote; Albert Aziza; Bairbre L Connolly
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-04-06

2.  A randomized trial comparing mail versus in-office distribution of the CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey.

Authors:  Michael P Anastario; Hector P Rodriguez; Patricia M Gallagher; Paul D Cleary; Dale Shaller; William H Rogers; Karen Bogen; Dana Gelb Safran
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Richard A Kozarek; Michael Gluck; Geoffrey C Jiranek; Johannes Koch; Kris V Kowdley; Shayan Irani; Matthew Nguyen; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Reliability and validity of the Psychiatric Inpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire - Continuous Electronic Measurement (PIPEQ-CEM).

Authors:  Hilde Hestad Iversen; Mona Haugum; Oyvind Bjertnaes
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 2.908

5.  Measuring the patient experience in primary care: Comparing e-mail and waiting room survey delivery in a family health team.

Authors:  Morgan Slater; Tara Kiran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  The Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire: scaling approaches to reduce positive skew.

Authors:  Oyvind Bjertnaes; Hilde Hestad Iversen; Andrew M Garratt
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 2.711

7.  Patient experiences questionnaire for interdisciplinary treatment for substance dependence (PEQ-ITSD): reliability and validity following a national survey in Norway.

Authors:  Mona Haugum; Hilde Hestad Iversen; Oyvind Bjertnaes; Anne Karin Lindahl
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 3.630

8.  Assessing the representativeness of physician and patient respondents to a primary care survey using administrative data.

Authors:  Allanah Li; Shawna Cronin; Yu Qing Bai; Kevin Walker; Mehdi Ammi; William Hogg; Sabrina T Wong; Walter P Wodchis
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 2.497

9.  Prospective cohort study protocol to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

Authors:  Niklas Bobrovitz; Maria Santana; Theresa Kline; John Kortbeek; Henry T Stelfox
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  PIPEQ-OS--an instrument for on-site measurements of the experiences of inpatients at psychiatric institutions.

Authors:  Oyvind Bjertnaes; Hilde Hestad Iversen; Johanne Kjollesdal
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.630

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.