Literature DB >> 16766604

A cluster-randomized trial of the significance of a reminder procedure in a patient evaluation survey in general practice.

Hanne N Heje1, Peter Vedsted, Frede Olesen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: . To determine whether adding a reminder procedure to the personal handing out of questionnaires to patients by general practitioners (GPs) in a patient evaluation survey added further information to the study and whether this influenced the results of the evaluations fed back to the GPs.
DESIGN: Patient evaluation survey in general practice. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 6822 patients consulting 60 GPs in a Danish county. GPs were voluntarily participating in a national patient evaluation project. INTERVENTION: We used the EUROPEP instrument for patient evaluation in general practice. It contains 23 items in five dimensions and two additional questions on general satisfaction. GPs were randomized into two groups with and without a reminder procedure. Main outcome measure. Scores in the six assessment dimensions and patient characteristics were compared for the primary and the reminder respondents and between the two randomization groups. In the analyses, we adjusted for the clustering of patients.
RESULTS: We found that the use of a reminder procedure increased the response rate. Respondents to a reminder were younger than the primary responding patients and were more critical in their GP assessment. Patient evaluations of the individual GPs were statistically significantly more critical if these reminder responses were included. Absolute differences were too small to have any practical implications.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding a reminder procedure to the face-to-face handing out of questionnaires to patients by the GPs increased the response rate significantly but produced no clinically significant differences in the assessment of the GPs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16766604     DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care        ISSN: 1353-4505            Impact factor:   2.038


  7 in total

1.  Are lower response rates hazardous to your health survey? An analysis of three state telephone health surveys.

Authors:  Michael Davern; Donna McAlpine; Timothy J Beebe; Jeanette Ziegenfuss; Todd Rockwood; Kathleen Thiede Call
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  General practitioners' experience and benefits from patient evaluations.

Authors:  Hanne N Heje; Peter Vedsted; Frede Olesen
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2011-10-31       Impact factor: 2.497

3.  Association between patients' recommendation of their GP and their evaluation of the GP.

Authors:  Peter Vedsted; Hanne N Heje
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.581

4.  Effects of survey mode, patient mix, and nonresponse on CAHPS hospital survey scores.

Authors:  Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Elizabeth Goldstein; William Lehrman; Katrin Hambarsoomians; Megan K Beckett; Laura Giordano
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Data quality and confirmatory factor analysis of the Danish EUROPEP questionnaire on patient evaluation of general practice.

Authors:  Peter Vedsted; Ineta Sokolowski; Hanne N Heje
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.581

Review 6.  Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Authors:  Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

7.  Patient-experienced effect of an active implementation of a disease management programme for COPD - a randomised trial.

Authors:  Margrethe Smidth; Frede Olesen; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Peter Vedsted
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 2.497

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.