Literature DB >> 31811594

The effect of multiple recruitment contacts on response rates and patterns of missing data in a survey of bladder cancer survivors 6 months after cystectomy.

Joanna E Bulkley1, Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti2, Christopher S Wendel3, James V Davis2, Kim N Danforth4, Teresa N Harrison4, Marilyn L Kwan5, Julie Munneke5, Neon Brooks2, Marcia Grant6, Michael C Leo2, Matthew Banegas2, Sheila Weinmann2, Carmit K McMullen2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Bladder Cancer Quality of Life Study collected detailed and sensitive patient-reported outcomes from bladder cancer survivors in the period after bladder removal surgery, when participation in survey research may present a burden. This paper describes the study recruitment methods and examines the response rates and patterns of missing data.
METHODS: Detailed surveys focusing on quality of life, healthcare decision-making, and healthcare expenses were mailed to patients 5-7 months after cystectomy. We conducted up to 10 follow-up recruitment calls. We analyzed survey completion rates following each contact in relation to demographic and clinical characteristics, and patterns of missing data across survey content areas.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 71% (n = 269/379). This was consistent across patient clinical characteristics; response rates were significantly higher among patients over age 70 and significantly lower among racial and ethnic minority patients compared to non-Hispanic white patients. Each follow-up contact resulted in marginal survey completion rates of at least 10%. Rates of missing data were low across most content areas, even for potentially sensitive questions. Rates of missing data differed significantly by sex, age, and race/ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the effort required to participate in research, this population of cancer survivors showed willingness to share detailed information about quality of life, health care decision-making, and expenses, soon after major cancer surgery. Additional contacts were effective at increasing participation. Response patterns differed by race/ethnicity and other demographic factors. Our data collection methods show that it is feasible to gather detailed patient-reported outcomes during this challenging period.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bladder cancer; Cancer survivors; Patient-reported outcomes; Recruitment; Response rates; Survey methods

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31811594     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02379-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  39 in total

1.  Methodologic Considerations for Collecting Patient-reported Outcomes from Unselected Surgical Patients.

Authors:  Daniel L Helsten; Arbi Ben Abdallah; Michael S Avidan; Troy S Wildes; Anke Winter; Sherry McKinnon; Mara Bollini; Penny Candelario; Beth A Burnside; Anshuman Sharma
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  Survey nonresponders to a medication-beliefs survey have worse adherence and persistence to chronic medications compared with survey responders.

Authors:  Abhijit S Gadkari; Alex Pedan; Neelam Gowda; Colleen A McHorney
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  A pragmatic analysis of vulnerability in clinical research.

Authors:  David Wendler
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.898

4.  Survey nonresponders incurred higher medical utilization and lower medication adherence.

Authors:  Seppo T Rinne; Edwin S Wong; Jaclyn M Lemon; Mark Perkins; Christopher L Bryson; Chuan-Fen Liu
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 2.229

5.  Burden and benefit of psychosocial research at the end of life.

Authors:  Hayley Pessin; Michele Galietta; Christian J Nelson; Robert Brescia; Barry Rosenfeld; William Breitbart
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.947

Review 6.  Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; Amy P Abernethy; C Daniel Mullins; Bryce B Reeve; Mary Lou Smith; Stephen Joel Coons; Jeff Sloan; Keith Wenzel; Cynthia Chauhan; Wayland Eppard; Elizabeth S Frank; Joseph Lipscomb; Stephen A Raymond; Merianne Spencer; Sean Tunis
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; Xiaoyu Jia; Glenn Heller; Allison Barz; Laura Sit; Michael Fruscione; Mark Appawu; Alexia Iasonos; Thomas Atkinson; Shari Goldfarb; Ann Culkin; Mark G Kris; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  What do palliative care patients and their relatives think about research in palliative care?-a systematic review.

Authors:  Clare White; Janet Hardy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  The feasibility of collecting information from people with Multiple Sclerosis for the UK MS Register via a web portal: characterising a cohort of people with MS.

Authors:  David V Ford; Kerina H Jones; Rod M Middleton; Hazel Lockhart-Jones; Inocencio Dc Maramba; Gareth J Noble; Lisa A Osborne; Ronan A Lyons
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Response rates for patient-reported outcomes using web-based versus paper questionnaires: comparison of two invitational methods in older colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Nicole Je Horevoorts; Pauline Aj Vissers; Floortje Mols; Melissa Sy Thong; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  1 in total

1.  Rural cancer survivors' health information needs post-treatment.

Authors:  Nynikka R Palmer; Nancy E Avis; Nora F Fino; Janet A Tooze; Kathryn E Weaver
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-02-27
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.