OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of survey distribution protocol (mail versus handout) on data quality and measurement of patient care experiences. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Multisite randomized trial of survey distribution protocols. Analytic sample included 2,477 patients of 15 clinicians at three practice sites in New York State. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Mail and handout distribution modes were alternated weekly at each site for 6 weeks. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Handout protocols yielded an incomplete distribution rate (74 percent) and lower overall response rates (40 percent versus 58 percent) compared with mail. Handout distribution rates decreased over time and resulted in more favorable survey scores compared with mailed surveys. There were significant mode-physician interaction effects, indicating that data cannot simply be pooled and adjusted for mode. CONCLUSIONS: In-office survey distribution has the potential to bias measurement and comparison of physicians and sites on patient care experiences. Incomplete distribution rates observed in-office, together with between-office differences in distribution rates and declining rates over time suggest staff may be burdened by the process and selective in their choice of patients. Further testing with a larger physician and site sample is important to definitively establish the potential role for in-office distribution in obtaining reliable, valid assessment of patient care experiences.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of survey distribution protocol (mail versus handout) on data quality and measurement of patient care experiences. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Multisite randomized trial of survey distribution protocols. Analytic sample included 2,477 patients of 15 clinicians at three practice sites in New York State. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Mail and handout distribution modes were alternated weekly at each site for 6 weeks. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Handout protocols yielded an incomplete distribution rate (74 percent) and lower overall response rates (40 percent versus 58 percent) compared with mail. Handout distribution rates decreased over time and resulted in more favorable survey scores compared with mailed surveys. There were significant mode-physician interaction effects, indicating that data cannot simply be pooled and adjusted for mode. CONCLUSIONS: In-office survey distribution has the potential to bias measurement and comparison of physicians and sites on patient care experiences. Incomplete distribution rates observed in-office, together with between-office differences in distribution rates and declining rates over time suggest staff may be burdened by the process and selective in their choice of patients. Further testing with a larger physician and site sample is important to definitively establish the potential role for in-office distribution in obtaining reliable, valid assessment of patient care experiences.
Authors: Hector P Rodriguez; Ted von Glahn; William H Rogers; Hong Chang; Gary Fanjiang; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Dana Gelb Safran; Melinda Karp; Kathryn Coltin; Hong Chang; Angela Li; John Ogren; William H Rogers Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.128
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
Authors: Keith M Drake; J Lee Hargraves; Stephanie Lloyd; Patricia M Gallagher; Paul D Cleary Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Brian Mavis; Margaret Holmes Rovner; Sarah Jorgenson; John Coffey; Nandita Anand; Emi Bulica; Carolyn Marie Gaulden; Jacob Peacock; Alycia Ernst Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Mona AuYoung; Ninez A Ponce; O Kenrik Duru; Arturo Vargas Bustamante; Carol M Mangione; Hector P Rodriguez Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2016-12