Evaluating patients' experiences with individual physicians: A randomized trial of mail, internet, and interactive voice response telephone administration of surveys

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 167-174

  Rodriguez, Hector P ^a,b   Von Glahn, Ted ^c   Rogers, William H ^a,d   Chang, Hong ^a,d   Fanjiang, Gary ^a   Safran, Dana Gelb ^a,d  

^a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Pacific Business Group on Health   (United States)

^d TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Interactive voice response (IVR); Internet administered surveys; Mode trial; Patient surveys; Performance assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; POSTAL MAIL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOCIOECONOMICS; TELEPHONE;

ADULT; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; POSTAL SERVICE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TELEPHONE;

EID: 33644861367     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000196961.00933.8e     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the Twenty-first Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Safran DG. An introduction to the CAHPS Ambulatory Care Surveys: CAHPS Clinician/Group Survey. Paper presented at: CAHPS Across the Health Care Continuum: 9th National User Group Meeting; December 2, 2004; Baltimore, MD.
3. Miller S. American Board of Medical Specialties; Implementing the CAHPS Ambulatory Care Survey: a panel discussion of current and planned activities. Paper presented at: CAHPS Across the Health Care Continuum: 9th National User Group Meeting; December 2, 2004; Baltimore, MD.
4. Scholle SH. National Committee for Quality Assurance; Implementing the CAHPS Ambulatory Care Survey: a panel discussion of current and planned activities. Paper presented at: CAHPS Across the Health Care Continuum: 9th National User Group Meeting; December 2, 2004; Baltimore, MD.
5. Karp M. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners; Implementing the CAHPS Ambulatory Care Survey: a panel discussion of current and planned activities. Paper presented at: CAHPS Across the Health Care Continuum: 9th National User Group Meeting; December 2, 2004; Baltimore, MD.
6. Hays RD, Chong K, Brown J, et al. Patient reports and ratings of individual physicians: an evaluation of the doctorguide and consumer assessment of health plans study provider-level surveys. Am J Med Qual. 2003;18:190-196.
7. Safran DG, Karp M, Coltin K, et al. Measuring patients' experiences with individual primary care physicians: results of a statewide demonstration project. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:13-21.
8. Mehta R, Sivadas E. Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. J Market Res Soc. 1995;37:429-439.
9. Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, et al. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract. 2003;20:545-551.
10. Couper MP, Blair J, Triplett T. A Comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of employees in U.S. statistical agencies. J Official Stat. 1999;15:39-56.
11. Janda LH, Janda M, Tedford E. IVR test & survey: a computer program to collect data via computerized telephonic applications. Behav Res Methods Instr Computers. 2001;33:513-516.
12. Baer L, Jacobs DG, Cukor P, et al. Automated telephone screening survey for depression. JAMA 1995;273:1943-1944.
13. Karp M, Safran DG, Coltin K. Final Report on the Massachusetts Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey Project. Waltham, MA, Mass. Health Quality Partners; 2004.
14. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software Reference Manual: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2001.
15. Kittleson MJ. An assessment of the response rate via the postal service and e-mail. Health Values. 1995;19:27-29.
16. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, de Groen PC. Utility of Web-based assessment of patient satisfaction with endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:1016-1021.
17. Paolo AM, Bonaminio GA, Gibson C, et al. Response rate comparisons of e-mail- and mail-distributed student evaluations. Teaching Learning Med. 2000;12:81-84.
18. Leece P. Correction and republication: Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled [correction of "Randomized"] - Comparison (2) (vol 4, pg 6, 2004). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:85-93.
19. McMahon SR, Iwamoto M, Massoudi MS, et al. Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e299-e303.
20. Kim HL, Gerber GS, Patel RV, et al. Practice patterns in the treatment of female urinary incontinence: a postal and Internet survey. Urology. 2001;57:45-48.
21. Raziano DB, Jayadevappa R, Valenzula D, et al. E-mail versus conventional postal mail survey of geriatric chiefs. Gerontologist. 2001;41:799-804.
22. Schonlau M, Asch BJ, Du C. Web surveys as part of a mixed-mode strategy for populations that cannot be contacted by e-mail. Social Science Computer Rev. 2003;21:218-222.
23. McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Couper MP, et al. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: web and U.S. mail. J Stud Alcohol. 2002;63:755-761.
24. Ritter P, Lorig K, Laurent D, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:e29.
25. Tse ACB, Tse KC, Yin CH, et al. Comparing 2 methods of sending out questionnaires - e-mail versus mail. J Market Res Soc. 1995;37:441-446.
26. Dillman DA, Christian LM. Survey Mode as a Source of Instability in Responses across Surveys. Field Methods. 2005;17:30-52.
27. Brewer NT, Hallman WK, Fiedler N, et al. Why do people report better health by phone than by mail? Med Care. 2004;42:875-883.
28. Holbrook AL, Green MC, Krosnick JA. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires- Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2003;67:79-125.
29. Hochstim JR. A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households. J Am Stat Assoc. 1967;62:976-989.
30. Perkins JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:969-973.
31. Burroughs TE, Waterman BM, Cira JC, et al. Patient satisfaction measurement strategies: a comparison of phone and mail methods. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001;27:349-361.
32. Fowler FJ Jr, Gallagher PM, Nederend S. Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS survey instrument. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. Med Care. 1999;37(3 Suppl):MS41-MS49.
33. Schonlau M, Fricker R, Elliott M. Conducting Research Surveys Via E-Mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2002.
34. Presence of Computer and the Internet for Households, by State: September 2001. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey; 2004.