Oyvind Bjertnaes1. 1. Department for Quality Measurement and Patient Safety, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Boks 7004 St Olavs plass, Oslo 0130, Norway. oan@kunnskapssenteret.no.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare patient-experience scores between patients with a proxy response and without a proxy response, using propensity-score matching to maximize the comparability between these two groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Hospital inpatient services in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were randomly selected from each of the 61 hospitals in Norway during spring 2011. Postal questionnaires were mailed to 23 420 patients after their discharge from hospital. INTERVENTION: No intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All of the patient respondents (n = 8744) and the matched cases (n = 734) were compared with patients with a proxy response (n = 734) on 12 patient-experience indicators using t-tests. RESULTS: Compared with patient respondents, patients with a proxy response had poorer health, were older and were more often discharged from the hospital to another health-care institution (P < 0.001). Patients with a proxy response yielded significantly lower patient-experience scores than those without a proxy response for 9 of the 12 indicators. Compared with the matched patient group, patients with a proxy response had significantly lower scores for 3 of the 12 indicators and a significantly higher score for one indicator. Differences in scores between patients with a proxy response and the matched patient sample were small, with the largest difference being 4 on a scale of 0-100. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a proxy response report somewhat poorer experiences than those without a proxy response; however, proxies represent a different patient group than the patient group as a whole, and the results were very similar after controlling for these differences.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare patient-experience scores between patients with a proxy response and without a proxy response, using propensity-score matching to maximize the comparability between these two groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Hospital inpatient services in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were randomly selected from each of the 61 hospitals in Norway during spring 2011. Postal questionnaires were mailed to 23 420 patients after their discharge from hospital. INTERVENTION: No intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All of the patient respondents (n = 8744) and the matched cases (n = 734) were compared with patients with a proxy response (n = 734) on 12 patient-experience indicators using t-tests. RESULTS: Compared with patient respondents, patients with a proxy response had poorer health, were older and were more often discharged from the hospital to another health-care institution (P < 0.001). Patients with a proxy response yielded significantly lower patient-experience scores than those without a proxy response for 9 of the 12 indicators. Compared with the matched patient group, patients with a proxy response had significantly lower scores for 3 of the 12 indicators and a significantly higher score for one indicator. Differences in scores between patients with a proxy response and the matched patient sample were small, with the largest difference being 4 on a scale of 0-100. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with a proxy response report somewhat poorer experiences than those without a proxy response; however, proxies represent a different patient group than the patient group as a whole, and the results were very similar after controlling for these differences.
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Samia H Lopa; Jonathan G Yabes; Joel B Nelson; Amber E Barnato; Howard B Degenholtz Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jessica K Roydhouse; Matthew L Cohen; Henrik R Eshoj; Nadia Corsini; Emre Yucel; Claudia Rutherford; Katarzyna Wac; Allan Berrocal; Alyssa Lanzi; Cindy Nowinski; Natasha Roberts; Angelos P Kassianos; Veronique Sebille; Madeleine T King; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 4.147