Online consumer surveys as a methodology for assessing the quality of the United States health care system

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 13-24

  Bethell, Christina ^a   Fiorillo, John ^b,c   Lansky, David ^d   Hendryx, Michael ^e   Knickman, James ^b  

^a KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^b ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION   (United States)

^c Health Strategy Group Inc   (United States)

^d Foundation for Accountability   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumers; Data collection; Health care surveys; Internet; Quality of health care

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; E-MAIL; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; ONLINE MONITORING; ONLINE SYSTEM; POPULATION; RANDOMIZATION; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SOCIAL STATUS; TELEPHONE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 2942662000     PISSN: 14388871     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6.1.e2     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. AHRQ leading effort to develop national report on health care quality [press release]. 2000 Nov 3. URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2000/natreppr.htm [accessed 2002 Jul 26]
2. Nursing Home Quality Initiative. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2002. URL: http://www.cms.gov/providers/nursinghomes/nhi/ [accessed 2002 Jul 26]
3. Hurtado MP, Swift EL, Corrigan JM, Committee on the National Quality Report on Health Care Delivery, Board of Health Care Services. Envisioning the National Healthcare Quality Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. [Full text]
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicaid program, Medicaid managed care; final rules. Federal Register 2002 Jun 14;67(115):40988-41116.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/schip [accessed 2002 Jul 26]
6. Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR, Rogers WH, Taira DH, Lieberman N, et al. The primary care assessment survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care 1998 May;36(5):728-739. [Medline]
7. Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S. Health care quality-incorporating consumer perspectives. JAMA 1997 Nov 19;278(19):1608-1612. [Medline]
8. Fowler FJ Jr, Cleary PD, Magaziner J, Patrick DL, Benjamin KL. Methodological issues in measuring patient-reported outcomes: the agenda of the work group on outcomes assessment. Med Care 1994 Jul;32(7 Suppl):JS65-JS76. [Medline]
9. Wasson J, Keller A, Rubenstein L, Hays R, Nelson E, Johnson D. Benefits and obstacles of health status assessment in ambulatory settings: the clinician's point of view. The Dartmouth Primary Care COOP Project. Med Care 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS42-MS49. [Medline]
10. Ware J. Measuring patients' views: the optimum outcome measure. SF 36: a valid, reliable assessment of health from the patient's point of view. Brit Med J 1993;306:1429-1430. [Medline]
11. Epstein AM. Rolling down the runway: the challenges ahead for quality report cards. JAMA 1998 Jun 3;279(21):1691-1696. [Medline]
12. Bethell C, Read D, Hochheimer J. CAHPS 2.0H Child survey with children with special health care needs module inserted: HEDIS work-up. Presented to the National Committee on Quality Assurance, Washington, DC, by the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, CAHMI 2000.
13. Kwak N, Radler BT. Using the Web for public opinion research: a comparative analysis between data collected via mail and the Web. Paper presented at: annual conference of American Association of Public Opinion Research; 2000; Portland, OR.
14. Yun GW, Trumbo CW. Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, and Web form. J Computer-Mediated Comm 2000;6. [Full text]
15. Burke Inc. Internet vs. telephone data collection: does method matter? 2000. URL: http://www.burke.com/whitepapers/PDF/B.WhitePaperVol2-2000-Iss5.pdf [accessed 2002 Jul 26]
16. Foundation for Accountability. Compare your care: a Web-based strategy for consumer activation. Quality counts; final report to Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Portland, OR: Foundation for Accountability; 2001.
17. National Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality (NICHQ). Home page. URL: http://www.nichq.org/ [accessed 2002 Jul 26]
18. Fischbacher C, Chappel D, Edwards R, Summerton N. Health surveys via the Internet: quick and dirty or rapid and robust? J R Soc Med 2000 Jul;93(7):356-359. [Medline]
19. Dillman DA. Mail and other self-administered surveys in the 21st century: the beginning of a new era. 1998 Mar. URL: http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/svys21st.pdf [accessed 2003 Oct 15]
20. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley & Sons; 2000.
21. Atrostic BK, Bates N, Burt G, Silberstein A, Franklin, Winters F. Nonresponse in federal household surveys: new measures and new insights. Paper presented at: International Conference on Survey Nonresponse; 1999 Oct; Portland, OR. [Full text]
22. Dillman DA, Carley-Baxter LR. Structural determinants of mail survey response rates over a 12-year period, 1988-1999. In: Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2000. [Full text]
23. Federal Trade Commission. National Do-Not-Call Registry. URL: https://www.donotcall.gov/ [accessed 2003 Oct 29]
24. Dillman DA, Phelps G, Tortora R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response and the Internet [draft]. URL: http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/ Mixed%20Mode%20ppr%20_with%20Gallup_%20POQ.pdf [accessed 2003 Oct 29]
25. Wiebe EF, Eyerman J, Loft J. Evaluating nonresponse in a Web-enabled survey on health and aging. Paper presented at: annual conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2001; Montreal, Canada.
26. Bauman S, Jobity N, Airey J, Atak H. Invites, intros, and incentives: lessons from a Web survey. Paper presented at: annual conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2000; Portland, OR.
27. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling through the net: toward digital inclusion. 2000 Oct. [Full text]
28. Lebo H. Surveying the digital future. The UCLA Internet report 2001: surveying the digital future. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Nov; 2001. [Full text]
29. Terhanian G, Bremer J, Smith R, Thomas R. Correcting data from online surveys for the effects of nonrandom selection and nonrandom assignment. Harris Interactive White Paper; 2000.
30. CyBulski KA, Sinclair M, Potter F, et al. Adjusting for nonresponse among Medicaid households that could not be located or were located but did not participate in the Minnesota Managed Care Survey. Paper presented at: American Statistical Association 161st Annual Meeting; 2001; Atlanta, GA.
31. McCready WC. A national random sample comparison between CATI and Web TV. Paper presented at: Annual Conference of American Association of Public Opinion Research; 2000; Portland, OR.
32. Crabtree S. Charting new ground: current approaches to the problems of Web-based polling. Gallup Management Journal 2000 Jul 31. URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20000818091337/http:/www.gallup.com/poll/managing/ mr000731.asp [accessed 2004 Jan 15]
33. Bethell CD, Lansky D, Read D. Reporting quality information to consumers, FACCT-The Foundation for Accountability. Report to the Health Care Financing Administration; 1997.
34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999.
35. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user's manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1994.
36. National Center for Health Statistics. National health interview survey questionnaire. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1998.
37. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Fact Sheet. CAHPS® and the National CAHPS® Benchmarking Database. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy. Apr; 2000. AHRQ Publication No. 00-PO47. [Full text]
38. Tarlov AR, Ware JE Jr, Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989 Aug 18;262(7):925-930. [Medline]
39. The Foundation for Accountability. FACCT Diabetes Survey. Portland, OR: The Foundation for Accountability; 1999.
40. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Population Survey. URL: http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm [accessed 2002 May 22]
41. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica 1951;16:297-334.
42. SPSS Inc. SPSS. Version 9. URL: http://www.spss.com/ [accessed 2003 Dec 26]
43. Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp RG. Basic and clinical biostatistics. 2nd ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange; 1994.
44. Gallagher PM, Fowler FJ, Stringfellow VL. The nature of nonresponse in a Medicaid survey: causes and consequences. Nonresponse in federal household surveys: new measures and new insights. Paper presented at: International Conference on Survey Nonresponse; 1999; Portland, OR. [Full text]