Heather Spencer Feigelson1, Carmit K McMullen2, Sarah Madrid3, Andrew T Sterrett3, J David Powers3, Erica Blum-Barnett3, Pamala A Pawloski4, Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss4, Virginia P Quinn5, David E Arterburn6, Douglas A Corley7. 1. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80231, USA. Heather.S.Feigelson@kp.org. 2. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80231, USA. 4. HealthPartners Institute, Bloomington, MN, USA. 5. Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA. 6. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to determine response rates and associated costs of different survey methods among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of 16,212 individuals diagnosed with CRC (2010-2014) from six health plans, and randomly selected 4000 survivors to test survey response rates across four mixed-mode survey administration protocols (in English and Spanish): arm 1, mailed survey with phone follow-up; arm 2, interactive voice response (IVR) followed by mail; arm 3; email linked to web-based survey with mail follow-up; and arm 4, email linked to web-based survey followed by IVR. RESULTS: Our overall response rate was 50.2%. Arm 1 had the highest response rate (59.9%), followed by arm 3 (51.9%), arm 2 (51.2%), and arm 4 (37.9%). Response rates were higher among non-Hispanic whites in all arms than other racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001), among English (51.5%) than Spanish speakers (36.4%) (p < 0.001), and among higher (53.7%) than lower (41.4%) socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Survey arms were roughly comparable in cost, with a difference of only 8% of total costs between the most (arm 2) and least (arm 3) expensive arms. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed surveys followed by phone calls achieved the highest response rate; email invitations and online surveys cost less per response. Electronic methods, even among those with email availability, may miss important populations including Hispanics, non-English speakers, and those of lower socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our results demonstrate effective methods for capturing patient-reported outcomes, inform the relative benefits/disadvantages of the different methods, and identify future research directions.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to determine response rates and associated costs of different survey methods among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of 16,212 individuals diagnosed with CRC (2010-2014) from six health plans, and randomly selected 4000 survivors to test survey response rates across four mixed-mode survey administration protocols (in English and Spanish): arm 1, mailed survey with phone follow-up; arm 2, interactive voice response (IVR) followed by mail; arm 3; email linked to web-based survey with mail follow-up; and arm 4, email linked to web-based survey followed by IVR. RESULTS: Our overall response rate was 50.2%. Arm 1 had the highest response rate (59.9%), followed by arm 3 (51.9%), arm 2 (51.2%), and arm 4 (37.9%). Response rates were higher among non-Hispanic whites in all arms than other racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001), among English (51.5%) than Spanish speakers (36.4%) (p < 0.001), and among higher (53.7%) than lower (41.4%) socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Survey arms were roughly comparable in cost, with a difference of only 8% of total costs between the most (arm 2) and least (arm 3) expensive arms. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed surveys followed by phone calls achieved the highest response rate; email invitations and online surveys cost less per response. Electronic methods, even among those with email availability, may miss important populations including Hispanics, non-English speakers, and those of lower socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our results demonstrate effective methods for capturing patient-reported outcomes, inform the relative benefits/disadvantages of the different methods, and identify future research directions.
Authors: M Jane Mohler; Stephen Joel Coons; Mark C Hornbrook; Lisa J Herrinton; Christopher S Wendel; Marcia Grant; Robert S Krouse Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2008-06-09 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Gene Hart; Jennifer L Ellis; Donald J Bachman; Gary Ansell; Sarah M Greene; Edward H Wagner; Roy Pardee; Mark M Schmidt; Ann Geiger; Amy L Butani; Terry Field; Hassan Fouayzi; Irina Miroshnik; Liyan Liu; Robert Diseker; Karen Wells; Rick Krajenta; Lois Lamerato; Christine Neslund Dudas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: Edward H Wagner; Sarah M Greene; Gene Hart; Terry S Field; Suzanne Fletcher; Ann M Geiger; Lisa J Herrinton; Mark C Hornbrook; Christine C Johnson; Judy Mouchawar; Sharon J Rolnick; Victor J Stevens; Stephen H Taplin; Dennis Tolsma; Thomas M Vogt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Donna D McAlpine; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah Jenkins; Lindsey Haas; Michael E Davern Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Michelle van Ryn; Sean M Phelan; Neeraj K Arora; David A Haggstrom; George L Jackson; S Yousuf Zafar; Joan M Griffin; Leah L Zullig; Dawn Provenzale; Mark W Yeazel; Rahul M Jindal; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amy Downing; Eva J A Morris; Mike Richards; Jessica Corner; Penny Wright; David Sebag-Montefiore; Paul Finan; Paul Kind; Charlotte Wood; Sarah Lawton; Richard Feltbower; Richard Wagland; Sally Vernon; James Thomas; Adam W Glaser Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I N Haskins; A S Prabhu; D M Krpata; A J Perez; L Tastaldi; C Tu; S Rosenblatt; B K Poulose; M J Rosen Journal: Hernia Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Matthew P Banegas; John F Dickerson; Nicole L Friedman; David Mosen; Althea X Ender; T Ruth Chang; Tracy A Runge; Mark C Hornbrook Journal: Perm J Date: 2019
Authors: Nathan H Parker; Karen Basen-Engquist; M Laura Rubin; Yisheng Li; Laura Prakash; An Ngo-Huang; Jessica Gorzelitz; Naruhiko Ikoma; Jeffrey E Lee; Matthew H G Katz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joanna E Bulkley; Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti; Christopher S Wendel; James V Davis; Kim N Danforth; Teresa N Harrison; Marilyn L Kwan; Julie Munneke; Neon Brooks; Marcia Grant; Michael C Leo; Matthew Banegas; Sheila Weinmann; Carmit K McMullen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Carmit McMullen; Joanna Bulkley; Douglas A Corley; Sarah Madrid; Anjelica Q Davis; Rose Hesselbrock; Florence Kurtilla; Charles K Anderson; David Arterburn; Carol P Somkin; Pamala A Pawloski; Nirupa R Ghai; Heather Spencer Feigelson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jennifer L Schneider; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Virginia P Quinn; Carmit McMullen; Pamela A Pawloski; John D Powers; Andrew T Sterrett; David Arterburn; Douglas A Corley Journal: Perm J Date: 2020
Authors: Joanna E Bulkley; Carmit K McMullen; Andreea M Rawlings; Robert S Krouse; Melanie C Francisco; Andrew T Sterrett; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Pamala A Pawloski; Douglas A Corley; Janice C Colwell; Heather Spencer Feigelson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 4.147