Literature DB >> 19114573

Are comparisons of consumer satisfaction with providers biased by nonresponse or case-mix differences?

Gregory Simon1, Carolyn Rutter, Marlan Crosier, Jennifer Scott, Belinda H Operskalski, Evette Ludman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined how consumer satisfaction ratings differ between mental health care providers to determine whether comparison of ratings is biased by differences in survey response rates or consumer characteristics.
METHODS: Consumer satisfaction surveys mailed by a mixed-model prepaid health plan were examined. Survey data were linked to computerized records regarding consumers' demographic (age, sex, and type of insurance coverage) and clinical (primary diagnosis and initial versus return visit) characteristics. Statistical models examined probabilities of returning the survey (N=8,025 returned surveys) and of giving an excellent satisfaction rating. Variability was separated into within-provider effects and between-provider effects.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 33.8%, and 49.9% of responders reported excellent satisfaction. Neither response rate nor satisfaction rating was related to primary diagnosis. Within the practices of individual providers, response rate and receiving an excellent rating were significantly associated with female sex, older age, longer enrollment in the health plan, and making a return visit. Analyses of between-provider effects, however, found that only a higher proportion of return visitors was significantly associated with higher response rates and higher satisfaction ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence that differences in response rate or in consumers served biased comparison of satisfaction ratings between mental health providers. Bias might be greater in a setting with more heterogeneous consumers or providers. Returning consumers gave higher ratings than first-time visitors, and analyses of satisfaction ratings may need to account for this difference. Extremely high or low ratings should be interpreted cautiously, especially for providers with a small number of surveys.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19114573      PMCID: PMC2804850          DOI: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.1.67

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychiatr Serv        ISSN: 1075-2730            Impact factor:   4.157


  18 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  The MHSIP mental health report card. A consumer-oriented approach to monitoring the quality of mental health plans. Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program.

Authors:  G B Teague; V Ganju; J A Hornik; J R Johnson; J McKinney
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  1997-06

4.  Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariates.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Plan, geographical, and temporal variation of consumer assessments of ambulatory health care.

Authors:  Alan M Zaslavsky; Lawrence B Zaborski; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Between- and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data.

Authors:  J M Neuhaus; J D Kalbfleisch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Psychiatrist and nonphysician mental health provider staffing levels in health maintenance organizations.

Authors:  T H Dial; C Bergsten; M G Haviland; H A Pincus
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 18.112

8.  The influence of patient characteristics on ratings of managed behavioral health care.

Authors:  Matthew J Carlson; James A Shaul; Susan V Eisen; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 1.505

9.  The influence of psychiatric disorders on patients' ratings of satisfaction with health care.

Authors:  R C Hermann; S L Ettner; R A Dorwart
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Use of consumer ratings for quality improvement in behavioral health insurance plans.

Authors:  J A Shaul; S V Eisen; V L Stringfellow; B R Clarridge; R C Hermann; D Nelson; E Anderson; A I Kubrin; H S Leff; P D Cleary
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Improv       Date:  2001-04
View more
  7 in total

1.  Comparison of telephone with World Wide Web-based responses by parents and teens to a follow-up survey after injury.

Authors:  Frederick P Rivara; Thomas D Koepsell; Jin Wang; Dennis Durbin; Kenneth M Jaffe; Monica Vavilala; Andrea Dorsch; Maria Roper-Caldbeck; Eileen Houseknecht; Nancy Temkin
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Implications of Variation in the Relationships between Beneficiary Characteristics and Medicare Advantage CAHPS Measures.

Authors:  Laura A Hatfield; Alan M Zaslavsky
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Improving satisfaction in patients receiving mental health care: a case study.

Authors:  Marlan Crosier; Jennifer Scott; Bradley Steinfeld
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.505

4.  Is dropout after a first psychotherapy visit always a bad outcome?

Authors:  Gregory E Simon; Zachary E Imel; Evette J Ludman; Bradley J Steinfeld
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  Removing very low-performing therapists: A simulation of performance-based retention in psychotherapy.

Authors:  Zac E Imel; Elisa Sheng; Scott A Baldwin; David C Atkins
Journal:  Psychotherapy (Chic)       Date:  2015-09

6.  Assessing the accuracy of profiling methods for identifying top providers: performance of mental health care providers.

Authors:  Victoria Y Ding; Rebecca A Hubbard; Carolyn M Rutter; Gregory E Simon
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2012-09-18

7.  Evidence of non-response bias in the Press-Ganey patient satisfaction survey.

Authors:  A R Tyser; A M Abtahi; M McFadden; A P Presson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 2.655

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.