Literature DB >> 28042621

Electronic Health Records to Evaluate and Account for Non-response Bias: A Survey of Patients Using Chronic Opioid Therapy.

Susan M Shortreed1, Michael Von Korff2, Stephen Thielke3, Linda LeResche4, Kathleen Saunders2, Dori Rosenberg2, Judith A Turner5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In observational studies concerning drug use and misuse, persons misusing drugs may be less likely to respond to surveys. However, little is known about differences in drug use and drug misuse risk factors between survey respondents and nonrespondents.
METHODS: Using electronic health record (EHR) data, we compared respondents and non-respondents in a telephone survey of middle-aged and older chronic opioid therapy patients to assess predictors of interview nonresponse. We compared general patient characteristics, specific opioid misuse risk factors, and patterns of opioid use associated with increased risk of opioid misuse. Inverse probability weights were calculated to account for nonresponse bias by EHR-measured covariates. EHR-measured covariate distributions for the full sample (nonrespondents and respondents), the unweighted respondent sample, and the inverse probability weighted respondent sample are reported. We present weighted and unweighted prevalence of self-reported opioid misuse risk factors.
RESULTS: Among 2489 potentially eligible patients, 1477 (59.3%) completed interviews. Response rates differed with age (45-54 years, 51.8%; 55-64 years, 58.7%; 65-74 years, 67.9%; and 75 years or older, 59.9%). Tobacco users had lower response rates than did nonusers (53.5% versus 60.9%). Charlson comorbidity score was also related to response rates. Individuals with a Charlson score of 2 had the highest response rate at 65.6%; response rates were lower amoung patients with the lowest (the patients with the fewest health conditions had response rates of 56.7-60.0%) and the highest Charlson scores (patients with the most health conditions had response rates of 52.2-56.0%). These bivariate relationships persisted in adjusted multivariable logistic regression models predicting survey response. Response rates of persons with and without specific opioid misuse risk factors were similar (e.g., 58.7% for persons with substance abuse diagnoses, 59.4% for those without). Opioid use patterns associated with opioid misuse did not predict response rates (e.g., 60.6% versus 59.2% for those receiving versus not receiving opioids from 3 or more physicians outside their primary care clinic). Very few patient characteristics predicted non-response; thus, inverse probability weights accounting for nonresponse had little impact on the distributions of EHR-measured covariates or self-reported measures related to opioid use and misuse.
CONCLUSIONS: Response rates differed by characteristics that predict nonresponse in general health surveys (age, tobacco use), but did not appear to differ by specific patient or drug use risk factors for prescription opioid misuse among middle- and older-aged chronic opioid therapy patients. When observational studies are conducted in health plan populations, electronic health records may be used to evaluate nonresponse bias and to adjust for variables predicting interview nonresponse, complementing other research uses of EHR data in observational studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inverse probability weights; electronic medical records; missing data

Year:  2016        PMID: 28042621      PMCID: PMC5193131     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obs Stud


  16 in total

1.  Nonresponse analysis and adjustment in a mail survey on car accidents.

Authors:  Emma Tivesten; Sofia Jonsson; Lotta Jakobsson; Hans Norin
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  2012-03-28

2.  The 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale had high sensitivity and specificity for detecting GAD in primary care.

Authors:  Petros Skapinakis
Journal:  Evid Based Med       Date:  2007-10

3.  Age and response rates to interview sample surveys.

Authors:  A R Herzog; W L Rodgers
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1988-11

4.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

Authors:  K Kroenke; R L Spitzer; J B Williams
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Survey nonresponse bias among young adults: the role of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.

Authors:  Carol B Cunradi; Roland Moore; Moira Killoran; Genevieve Ames
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.164

6.  Potentially modifiable factors associated with disability among people with diabetes.

Authors:  Michael Von Korff; Wayne Katon; Elizabeth H B Lin; Gregory Simon; Evette Ludman; Malia Oliver; Paul Ciechanowski; Carolyn Rutter; Terry Bush
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.312

7.  The prescribed opioids difficulties scale: a patient-centered assessment of problems and concerns.

Authors:  Caleb J Banta-Green; Michael Von Korff; Mark D Sullivan; Joseph O Merrill; Suzanne R Doyle; Kathleen Saunders
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.442

8.  The prevalence of problem opioid use in patients receiving chronic opioid therapy: computer-assisted review of electronic health record clinical notes.

Authors:  Roy E Palmer; David S Carrell; David Cronkite; Kathleen Saunders; David E Gross; Elizabeth Masters; Sean Donevan; Timothy R Hylan; Michael Von Kroff
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  De facto long-term opioid therapy for noncancer pain.

Authors:  Michael Von Korff; Michael Von Korff; Kathleen Saunders; Gary Thomas Ray; Denise Boudreau; Cynthia Campbell; Joseph Merrill; Mark D Sullivan; Carolyn M Rutter; Michael J Silverberg; Caleb Banta-Green; Constance Weisner
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.442

10.  Timeliness of Care Planning upon Initiation of Chronic Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Michael Von Korff; Judith A Turner; Susan M Shortreed; Kathleen Saunders; Dori Rosenberg; Stephen Thielke; Linda LeResche
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.750

View more
  3 in total

1.  Improving pragmatic clinical trial design using real-world data.

Authors:  Susan M Shortreed; Carolyn M Rutter; Andrea J Cook; Gregory E Simon
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Assessing the representativeness of physician and patient respondents to a primary care survey using administrative data.

Authors:  Allanah Li; Shawna Cronin; Yu Qing Bai; Kevin Walker; Mehdi Ammi; William Hogg; Sabrina T Wong; Walter P Wodchis
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 2.497

3.  Factors Associated with Survey Non-Response in a Cross-Sectional Survey of Persons with an Axial Spondyloarthritis or Osteoarthritis Claims Diagnosis.

Authors:  Johanna Callhoff; Hannes Jacobs; Katinka Albrecht; Joachim Saam; Angela Zink; Falk Hoffmann
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 3.390

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.