Dataset Information

Interviewers' Ratings of Respondents' Health: Predictors and Association With Mortality.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Recent research indicates that survey interviewers' ratings of respondents' health (IRH) may provide supplementary health information about respondents in surveys of older adults. Although IRH is a potentially promising measure of health to include in surveys, our understanding of the factors contributing to IRH remains incomplete. METHODS:We use data from the 2011 face-to-face wave of the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, a longitudinal study of older adults from the Wisconsin high school class of 1957 and their selected siblings. We first examine whether a range of factors predict IRH: respondents' characteristics that interviewers learn about and observe as respondents answer survey questions, interviewers' evaluations of some of what they observe, and interviewers' characteristics. We then examine the role of IRH, respondents' self-rated health (SRH), and associated factors in predicting mortality over a 3-year follow-up. RESULTS:As in prior studies, we find that IRH is associated with respondents' characteristics. In addition, this study is the first to document how IRH is associated with both interviewers' evaluations of respondents and interviewers' characteristics. Furthermore, we find that the association between IRH and the strong criterion of mortality remains after controlling for respondents' characteristics and interviewers' evaluations of respondents. DISCUSSION:We propose that researchers incorporate IRH in surveys of older adults as a cost-effective, easily implemented, and supplementary measure of health.

SUBMITTER: Garbarski D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6748795 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interviewers' Ratings of Respondents' Health: Predictors and Association With Mortality.

Garbarski Dana D Schaeffer Nora Cate NC Dykema Jennifer J

The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences 20190901 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>Recent research indicates that survey interviewers' ratings of respondents' health (IRH) may provide supplementary health information about respondents in surveys of older adults. Although IRH is a potentially promising measure of health to include in surveys, our understanding of the factors contributing to IRH remains incomplete.<h4>Methods</h4>We use data from the 2011 face-to-face wave of the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, a longitudinal study of older adults from the Wisco ...[more]

PMID: 29220523

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMortality across US counties varies considerably, from 252 to 1847 deaths per 100 000 people in 2018. Although patient satisfaction with health care is associated with patient- and facility-level health outcomes, the association between health care satisfaction and community-level health outcomes is not known.ObjectiveTo examine the association between online ratings of health care facilities and mortality across US counties and to identify language specific to 1-star (lowest rating) and 5-star (highest rating) reviews in counties with high vs low mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective population-based cross-sectional study examined reviews and ratings of 95 120 essential health care facilities across 1301 US counties. Counties that had at least 1 essential health care facility with reviews available on Yelp, an online review platform, were included. Essential health care was defined according to the 10 essential health benefits covered by Affordable Care Act insurance plans.Main outcomes and measuresThe mean rating of essential health care facilities was calculated by county from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Ratings were on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, with 1 being the worst rating and 5 the best. County-level composite measures of health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environment were obtained from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health County Health Rankings database. The 2018 age-adjusted mortality by county was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research database. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate the association between mean facility rating and mortality, adjusting for county health ranking variables. Words with frequencies of use that were significantly different across 1-star and 5-star reviews in counties with high vs low mortality were identified.ResultsThe 95 120 facilities meeting inclusion criteria were distributed across 1301 of 3142 US counties (41.4%). At the county level, a 1-point increase in mean rating was associated with a mean (SE) age-adjusted decrease of 18.05 (3.68) deaths per 100 000 people (P < .001). Words specific to 1-star reviews in high-mortality counties included told, rude, and wait, and words specific to 5-star reviews in low-mortality counties included Dr, pain, and professional.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that, at the county level, higher online ratings of essential health care facilities were associated with lower mortality. Equivalent online ratings did not necessarily reflect equivalent experiences of care across counties with different mortality levels, as evidenced by variations in the frequency of use of key words in reviews. These findings suggest that online ratings and reviews may provide insight into unequal experiences of essential health care.

Project description:The possible burden of participating in trauma research is an important topic for Ethical Committees (EC's), Review Boards (RB's) and researchers. However, to what extent research on trauma is more burdensome than non-trauma research is unknown. Little is known about which factors explain respondents evaluations on the burden: to what extent are they trauma-related or dependent on other factors such as personality and how respondents evaluate research in general? Data of a large probability based multi-wave internet panel, with surveys on politics and values, personality and health in 2009 and 2011, and a survey on trauma in 2012 provided the unique opportunity to address these questions. Results among respondents confronted with these events in the past 2 years (N = 950) showed that questions on trauma were significantly and systematically evaluated as less pleasant (enjoyed less), more difficult, but also stimulated respondents to think about things more than almost all previous non-trauma surveys. Yet, the computed effect sizes indicated that the differences were (very) small and often meaningless. No differences were found between users and non-users of mental services, in contrast to posttraumatic stress symptoms. Evaluations of the burden of previous surveys in 2011 on politics and values, personality and health most strongly, systematically and independently predicted the burden of questions on trauma, and not posttraumatic stress symptoms, event-related coping self-efficacy and personality factors. For instance, multiple linear regression analyses showed that 30% of the variance of how (un)pleasant questions on trauma and life-events were evaluated, was explained by how (un)pleasant the 3 surveys in 2011 were evaluated, in contrast to posttraumatic stress symptoms (not significant) and coping self-efficacy (5%). Findings question why EC's, RB's and researchers should be more critical of the possible burden of trauma research than of the possible burden of other non-trauma research.

Project description:ImportancePatient reviews of health care experiences are increasingly used for public reporting and alternative payment models. Critics have argued that this incentivizes physicians to provide more care, including low-value care, undermining efforts to reduce wasteful practices.ObjectiveTo assess associations between rates of low-value service provision to a primary care professional (PCP) patient panel and patients' ratings of their health care experiences.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study used Medicare fee-for-service claims from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, for a random 20% sample of beneficiaries to identify beneficiaries for whom each of 8 low-value services could be ordered but would be considered unnecessary. The study also used health care experience reports from independently sampled beneficiaries who responded to the 2010-2015 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare fee-for-service survey. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, to December 9, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were health care experience ratings from Medicare beneficiaries who responded to the CAHPS survey from 2 domains, namely "Your Health Care in the Last 6 Months" (overall health care, office wait time, timely access to nonurgent care, and timely access to urgent care) and "Your Personal Doctor" (overall personal physician and a composite score for interactions with personal physician). Beneficiaries in both samples were attributed to the PCP with whom they had the most spending. For each PCP, a composite score of low-value service exposure was constructed using the 20% sample; this score represented the adjusted relative propensity of the PCP patient panel to receive low-value care. The association between low-value service exposure and health care experience ratings reported by the CAHPS respondents in the PCP patient panel was estimated using regression analysis.ResultsThe final sample had 100 743 PCPs, with a mean of approximately 258 patients per PCP. Only 1 notable association was found; more low-value care exposure was associated with more frequent reports of having to wait more than 15 minutes after the scheduled time of an appointment (a mean of 0.448 points lower CAHPS score on a 10-point scale for PCP patient panels who received the most low-value care vs the least low-value care). Although some other associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were substantially smaller than those typically considered meaningful in other CAHPS literature and were inconsistent in direction across levels of low-value service exposure.Conclusions and relevanceThis quality improvement study found that more low-value care exposure for a PCP patient panel was not associated with more favorable patient ratings of their health care experiences.

Dataset Information

Interviewers' Ratings of Respondents' Health: Predictors and Association With Mortality.

Publications

Interviewers' Ratings of Respondents' Health: Predictors and Association With Mortality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets