Dataset Information

A randomized trial comparing mail versus in-office distribution of the CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Anastario MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2965508 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial comparing mail versus in-office distribution of the CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey.

Anastario Michael P MP Rodriguez Hector P HP Gallagher Patricia M PM Cleary Paul D PD Shaller Dale D Rogers William H WH Bogen Karen K Safran Dana Gelb DG

Health services research 20101001 5 Pt 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of survey distribution protocol (mail versus handout) on data quality and measurement of patient care experiences.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Multisite randomized trial of survey distribution protocols. Analytic sample included 2,477 patients of 15 clinicians at three practice sites in New York State.<h4>Data collection/extraction methods</h4>Mail and handout distribution modes were alternated weekly at each site for 6 weeks.<h4>Principal findings</h ...[more]

PMID: 20579126

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInternet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) for depression is effective when guided by a clinician, less so if unguided.QuestionWould guidance from a technician be as effective as guidance from a clinician?MethodRandomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing three groups: Clinician-assisted vs. technician-assisted vs. delayed treatment. Community-based volunteers applied to the VirtualClinic (www.virtualclinic.org.au) research program, and 141 participants with major depressive disorder were randomized. Participants in the clinician- and technician-assisted groups received access to an iCBT program for depression comprising 6 online lessons, weekly homework assignments, and weekly supportive contact over a treatment period of 8 weeks. Participants in the clinician-assisted group also received access to a moderated online discussion forum. The main outcome measures were the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the Patient Health QUESTIONnaire-9 Item (PHQ-9). Completion rates were high, and at post-treatment, both treatment groups reduced scores on the BDI-II (p<0.001) and PHQ-9 (p<0.001) compared to the delayed treatment group but did not differ from each other. Within group effect sizes on the BDI-II were 1.27 and 1.20 for the clinician- and technician-assisted groups respectively, and on the PHQ-9, were 1.54 and 1.60 respectively. At 4-month follow-up participants in the technician group had made further improvements and had significantly lower scores on the PHQ-9 than those in the clinician group. A total of approximately 60 minutes of clinician or technician time was required per participant during the 8-week treatment program.ConclusionsBoth clinician- and technician-assisted treatment resulted in large effect sizes and clinically significant improvements comparable to those associated with face-to-face treatment, while a delayed treatment control group did not improve. These results provide support for large scale trials to determine the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of technician-assisted iCBT programs for depression. This form of treatment has potential to increase the capacity of existing mental health services.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000559213.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial comparing mail versus in-office distribution of the CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey.

Objective

Data sources/study setting

Data collection/extraction methods

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

A randomized trial comparing mail versus in-office distribution of the CAHPS Clinician and Group Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets