Literature DB >> 15838417

Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke.

Pamela Duncan1, Dean Reker, Sooyeon Kwon, Sue-Min Lai, Stephanie Studenski, Subashan Perera, Carmen Alfrey, Jesus Marquez.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine response rate, mode effects, and reliability of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) in a veteran stroke population using mail and telephone modes of administration.
METHODS: Patients who had suffered a stroke were identified using national VA administrative data and International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes in 13 participating Veterans Affairs hospital. Stroke was confirmed by reviewing electronic medical records. Patients were randomized to SIS administration by mail or telephone at 12-weeks after their stroke. Comparison of response rate, nonresponse bias, domain scores, administration costs, and instrument reliability were performed.
RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-eight patients with stroke were identified, validated, and randomly assigned into 2 administration groups. No significant cluster effect was observed. Response rates for mail and telephone were 45% and 69%, respectively. Mail nonresponders were more likely to have had severe stokes, cognitive deficits, and be unmarried. No difference was observed between telephone responders and nonresponders. Responders in mail and telephone modes were not different, and the SIS score distribution did not indicate the presence of mode effects. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent in the mail group (0.77-0.99) except social participation (0.62). Test retest reliability was excellent in the telephone mode (0.90-0.99) except emotion (0.68).
CONCLUSIONS: Telephone mode of survey administration yielded a higher response rate, less bias in responder selection, and higher test-retest reliability. The cost of telephone administration was 2 times the cost of mail. Mode effects in SIS score distribution were not observed in this study but additional research with larger sample sizes is needed to provide more definitive evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15838417     DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160421.42858.de

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


  17 in total

1.  Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples.

Authors:  Matthias Rose; Andrea Bezjak
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Psychometric properties of measures of upper limb activity performance in adults with and without spasticity undergoing neurorehabilitation-A systematic review.

Authors:  Shannon Pike; Anne Cusick; Kylie Wales; Lisa Cameron; Lynne Turner-Stokes; Stephen Ashford; Natasha A Lannin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Methodological issues in monitoring health services and outcomes for stroke survivors: a case study.

Authors:  Mary Stuart; Donato Papini; Francesco Benvenuti; Marco Nerattini; Enrico Roccato; Velio Macellari; Steven Stanhope; Richard Macko; Michael Weinrich
Journal:  Disabil Health J       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.554

4.  Fluoxetine to improve functional outcomes in patients after acute stroke: the FOCUS RCT.

Authors:  Martin Dennis; John Forbes; Catriona Graham; Maree Hackett; Graeme J Hankey; Allan House; Stephanie Lewis; Erik Lundström; Peter Sandercock; Gillian Mead
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.014

5.  The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration.

Authors:  James Fries; Matthias Rose; Eswar Krishnan
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.666

6.  Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale.

Authors:  Keh-Chung Lin; Tiffany Fu; Ching-Yi Wu; Yu-Wei Hsieh; Chia-Ling Chen; Pei-Chin Lee
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: an IRT-based analysis from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative.

Authors:  Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Barbara Gandek; Arthur A Stone; Doerte U Junghaenel; John E Ware
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Measuring stroke impact with SIS: construct validity of SIS telephone administration.

Authors:  Sooyeon Kwon; Pamela Duncan; Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Sue Min Lai; Dean Reker
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Active range of motion predicts upper extremity function 3 months after stroke.

Authors:  Justin A Beebe; Catherine E Lang
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke.

Authors:  Justin A Beebe; Catherine E Lang
Journal:  J Neurol Phys Ther       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.