Dataset Information

Patient-reported experiences with general practitioners: a randomised study of mail and web-based approaches following a national survey.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The standard data-collection procedure in the Norwegian national patient experience survey programme is post-discharge mail surveys, which include a pen-and-paper questionnaire with the option to answer electronically. A purely electronic protocol has not previously been explored in Norway. The aim of this study was to compare response rates, background characteristics, data quality and main study results for a survey of patient experiences with general practitioners (GPs) administered by the standard mail data-collection procedure and a web-based approach. DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey. SETTING:GP offices in Norway. PARTICIPANTS:The sample consisted of 6999 patients aged 16 years and older registered with a GP in November 2018. INTERVENTION:Based on a three-stage sampling design, 6999 patients of GPs aged 16 or older were randomised to one of two survey administration protocols: Group A, who were mailed an invitation with both a pen-and-paper including an electronic response option (n=4999) and Group B, who received an email invitation with electronic response option (n=2000). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Response rates, background characteristics, data quality and main study results. RESULTS:The response rate was markedly higher for the mail survey (42.6%) than for the web-based survey (18.3%). A few of the background variables differed significantly between the two groups, but the data quality and patient-reported experiences were similar. CONCLUSIONS:Web-based surveys are faster and less expensive than standard mail surveys, but their low response rates and coverage problems threaten their usefulness and legitimacy. Initiatives to increase response rates for web-based data collection and strategies for tailoring data collection to different groups should be key elements in future research.

SUBMITTER: Iversen HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7554501 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-reported experiences with general practitioners: a randomised study of mail and web-based approaches following a national survey.

Iversen Hilde Hestad HH Holmboe Olaf O Bjertnaes Oyvind O

BMJ open 20201013 10

<h4>Objective</h4>The standard data-collection procedure in the Norwegian national patient experience survey programme is post-discharge mail surveys, which include a pen-and-paper questionnaire with the option to answer electronically. A purely electronic protocol has not previously been explored in Norway. The aim of this study was to compare response rates, background characteristics, data quality and main study results for a survey of patient experiences with general practitioners (GPs) admi ...[more]

PMID: 33051230

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Internet has been broadly employed as a facilitator for epidemiological surveys, as a way to provide a more economical and practical alternative to traditional survey modes. A current trend in survey research is to combine Web-based surveys with other survey modes by offering the participant the possibility of choosing his/her preferred response method (i.e. mixed-mode approach). However, studies have also demonstrated that the use of different survey modes may produce different responses to the same questions, posing potential challenges on the use of mixed-mode approaches. METHODS:In this paper, we have implemented a statistical comparison between mixed-mode survey responses collected via mail (i.e. paper) and Web methods obtained from a cross-sectional study in non-urban areas of Denmark. Responses provided by mail and Web participants were compared in terms of: 1) the impact of reminder letters in increasing response rates; 2) differences in socio-demographic characteristics between response groups; 3) changes on the likelihood of reporting health symptoms and negative attitudes towards environmental stressors. Comparisons were mainly performed by two sample t-test, Pearson's Chi-squared test and multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS:Among 3104 contacted households, 1066 residents decided to participate on the study. Out of those, 971 selected to respond via mail, whereas 275 preferred the Web method. The majority of socio-demographic characteristics between these two groups of respondents were shown to be statistically different. The use of mailed surveys increased the likelihood of reporting health symptoms and negative attitudes towards environmental stressors, even after controlling for demographic characteristics. Furthermore, the use of reminder letters had a higher positive impact in increasing responses of Web surveys when compared to mail surveys. CONCLUSIONS:Our main findings suggest that the use of mail and Web surveys may produce different responses to the same questions posed to participants, but, at the same time, may reach different groups of respondents, given that the overall characteristics of both groups considerably differ. Therefore, the tradeoff between using mixed-mode survey as a way to increase response rate and obtaining undesirable measurement changes may be attentively considered in future survey studies.

Project description:ContextThe current report is part of a prospective, multi-center, two-arm, quasi-randomized field study focusing on the effectiveness in general praxis of evidence-based procedures in the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.ObjectiveThe specific aims were to (i) evaluate patient-reported experience and outcome measures of treatment following a guided approach to periodontal infection control (GPIC) compared to conventional non-surgical therapy (CNST) and to (ii) identify potential predictors of subjective treatment outcomes and patient's adherence to self-performed infection control, i.e. adequate oral hygiene.MethodsThe study sample consisted of 494 patients treated per protocol with questionnaire- and clinical data at baseline and 6-months. The GPIC approach (test) comprised patient education for adequate oral hygiene prior to a single session of full-mouth ultra-sonic instrumentation, while the CNST approach (control) comprised education and instrumentation (scaling and root planing) integrated at required number of consecutive appointments. Clinical examinations and treatment were performed by Dental Hygienists, i.e. not blinded. Data were processed with bivariate statistics for comparison between treatment groups and with multiple regression models to identify potential predictors of subjective and clinical outcomes. The primary clinical outcome was gingival bleeding scores.ResultsNo substantial differences were found between the two treatment approaches regarding patient-reported experiences or outcomes of therapy. Patients' experiences of definitely being involved in therapy decisions was a significant predictor for a desirable subjective and clinical outcome in terms of; (i) that oral health was considered as much improved after therapy compared to how it was before, (ii) that the treatment definitively had been worth the cost and efforts, and (iii) adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. In addition, to be a current smoker counteracted patients' satisfaction with oral health outcome, while gingival bleeding scores at baseline predicted clinical outcome in terms of bleeding scores at 6-months.ConclusionsThe results suggest that there are no differences with regard to patient-reported experiences and outcomes of therapy following a GPIC approach to periodontal infection control versus CNST. Patients' experiences of being involved in therapy decisions seem to be an important factor for satisfaction with care and for adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. Registered at: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02168621).

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Project description:BackgroundModern palliative care focuses on enabling patients to spend their remaining time at home, and dying comfortably at home, for those patients who want it. Compared to many European countries, few die at home in Norway. General practitioners' (GPs') involvement in palliative care may increase patients' time at home and achievements of home death. Norwegian GPs are perceived as missing in this work. The aim of this study is to explore GPs' experiences in palliative care regarding their involvement in this work, how they define their role, and what they think they realistically can contribute towards palliative patients.MethodsWe performed focus group interviews with GPs, following a semi-structured interview guide. We included four focus groups with a total of 25 GPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We performed qualitative analysis on these interviews, inspired by interpretative phenomenological analysis.ResultsStrengths of the GP in the provision of palliative care consisted of characteristics of general practice and skills they relied on, such as general medical knowledge, being coordinator of care, and having a personal and longitudinal knowledge of the patient and a family perspective. They generally had positive attitudes but differing views about their formal role, which was described along three positions towards palliative care: the highly involved, the weakly involved, and the uninvolved GP.ConclusionGPs have evident strengths that could be important in the provision of palliative care. They rely on general medical knowledge and need specialist support. They had no consensus about their role in palliative care. Multiple factors interact in complex ways to determine how the GPs perceive their role and how involved they are in palliative care. GPs may possess skills and knowledge complementary to the specialized skills of palliative care team physicians. Specialized teams with extensive outreach activities should be aware of the potential they have for both enabling and deskilling GPs.

Dataset Information

Patient-reported experiences with general practitioners: a randomised study of mail and web-based approaches following a national survey.

Publications

Patient-reported experiences with general practitioners: a randomised study of mail and web-based approaches following a national survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets