A cluster-randomized trial of the significance of a reminder procedure in a patient evaluation survey in general practice

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 232-237

  Heje, Hanne N ^a   Vedsted, Peter ^a   Olesen, Frede ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

EUROPEP; Family practice; Patient evaluation; Reminder; Selection bias; Survey

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENMARK; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SATISFACTION; SCORING SYSTEM; VOLUNTEER;

ADULT; DENMARK; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; QUESTIONNAIRES; REMINDER SYSTEMS;

EID: 33745700709     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: 14643677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl006     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Barkley WM, Furse DH. Changing priorities for improvement: The impact of low response rates in patient satisfaction. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1996; 22: 427-433.
2. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1129-1136.
3. Sitzia J, Wood N. Response rate in patient satisfaction research: An analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health Care 1998; 10: 311-317.
4. Gasquet I, Falissard B, Ravaud P. Impact of reminders and method of questionnaire distribution on patient response to mailback satisfaction survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1174-1180.
5. Smeeth L, Fletcher AE. Improving the response rates to questionnaires. Br Med J 2002; 324: 1168-1169.
6. Fox RJ, Crask MR, Kim J. Mail survey response rate. A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Q 1988; 52: 467-491.
7. Vedsted P, Mainz J, Olesen F. The significance of a reminder and physician's motivation for the response rate of a questionnaire survey in general practice (in Danish). Ugeskr Laeger 2001; 163: 5529-5532.
8. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. Br Med J 2002; 324: 1183-1191.
9. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N. Design and use of questionnaires: A review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5: 1-256.
10. der Wiel AB, van Exel E, de Craen AJ, Gussekloo J, Lagaay AM, Knook DL. A high response is not essential to prevent selection bias: Results from the Leiden 85-plus study. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 1119-1125.
11. Wensing M, Mainz J, Kvamme OJ, Jung HP, Ribacke M. Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 585-587.
12. Grol R, Wensing M. Patients evaluate general/family practice. The EUROPEP instrument. Nijmegen: EQuiP, WONCA Region Europe, 2000.
13. Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Jung HP, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw H. Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: An international comparison. Br J Gen Pract 2000; 50: 882-887.
14. Donner A, Klar N. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomisation Trials in Health Research. London, UK Hodder Arnold, 2000.
15. Stata Statistical Software: Release 8.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 2003.
16. Dupont WD. Statistical Modeling for Biomedical Researchers. A Simple Introduction to the Anaylsis of Complex Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
17. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, third edition. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994.
18. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1998.
19. Mazor KM, Clauser BE, Field T, Yood RA, Gurwitz JH. A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys. Health Serv Res 2002; 37: 1403-1417.
20. Lewis JR. Patient views on quality care in general practice: Literature review. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 655-670.
21. Baker R, Streatfield J. What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 654-659.
22. Mainz J, Vedsted P, Olesen F. How do patients evaluate their general practitioners? Danish results from a European study (in Danish). Ugeskr Laeger 2000; 162: 654-658.
23. Campbell JL, Ramsay J, Green J. Age, gender, socioeconomic, and ethnic differences in patients' assessments of primary health care. Qual Health Care 2001; 10: 90-95.
24. Perneger TV, Chamot E, Bovier PA. Nonresponse bias in a survey of patient perceptions of hospital care. Med Care 2005; 43: 374-380.