Search

Objective: To examine the effect of changing the sampling and reference periods for the CAHPS® Clinician & Group Survey from 12 to 6 months.Data Sources/study Setting: Adult patients with a visit in the last 12 months to New England community health centers.Study Design: We randomly assigned patients to receive a survey with either a 12- or 6-month recall period.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to patients, with a second questionnaire mailed to nonrespondents, followed by six attempts to complete a telephone interview.Principal Findings: If the sampling criterion was a visit in the last 6 months, 9 percent of those with a visit in the last 12 months would not have been surveyed. A total of 1837 patients completed 6-month surveys (44.9 percent response rate); 588 completed 12-month surveys (46.0 percent response rate). Shortening the reference from 12 to 6 months reduced the proportion of respondents reporting a blood test, X-ray, or other tests. Adjusting for respondent characteristics, the most positive response was selected more often on the 6-month survey for 12 out of 13 questions, and three of these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).Conclusions: Surveys using a 6-month recall period may yield slightly higher scores than surveys with a 12-month recall period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare response rates, respondents' characteristics, and substantive results for CAHPS surveys administered using web and mail protocols.Data Sources: Patients who had one or more primary care visits in the preceding 6 months.Study Design/data Collection Methods: Patients for whom primary care practices had email addresses were randomized to one of four survey administration protocols: web via a portal invitation; web via an email invitation; combination of web and mail; and mail only. Another sample of patients without known email addresses was surveyed by mail. Samples of nonrespondents to the Internet and mail protocols were surveyed by telephone.Principal Findings: Response rates to surveys administered using the Internet protocols were lower than for the surveys administered by mail (20 percent vs over 40 percent). However, characteristics of respondents and survey answers were very similar across protocols. Respondents without email addresses were older, less educated, and more likely to be male than those with email addresses, and there were a few differences in their responses. There was little evidence of nonresponse bias in either the mail or web protocols.Conclusion: In this well-educated patient population, web protocols had lower response rates, but substantive results very similar to those from mail protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Women with early-stage breast cancer face a multitude of decisions. The quality of a decision can be measured by the extent to which the treatment reflects what is most important to an informed patient. Reliable and valid measures of patients’ knowledge and their goals and concerns related to breast cancer treatments are needed to assess the decision quality. Objective To identify a set of key facts and goals relevant to each of three breast cancer treatment decisions (surgery, reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy) and to evaluate the validity of the methods used to identify them. Methods Candidate facts and goals were chosen based on evidence review and qualitative studies with breast cancer patients and providers. Cross-sectional surveys of patients and providers were conducted for each decision. The accuracy, importance and completeness of the items were examined. Results Thirty-eight facts (11–14 per decision) and 27 goals (8–10 per decision) were identified. An average of 17 patients and 21 providers responded to each survey. The sets of facts were accurate and complete for all three decisions. The sets of goals and concerns were important for surgery and reconstruction, but not chemotherapy/hormone therapy. Patients and providers disagreed about the relative importance of several key facts and goals. Conclusions Overall, breast cancer patients and providers found the sets of facts and goals accurate, important and complete for three treatment decisions. Because patients’ and providers’ perspectives are different, it is vital that instrument development should include items reflecting both views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]