Response rates for patient-reported outcomes using web-based versus paper questionnaires: Comparison of two invitational methods in older colorectal cancer patients

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2015, Pages

  Horevoorts, Nicole J E ^a,b   Vissers, Pauline A J ^b   Mols, Floortje ^a   Melissa, S Y Thong ^b   Van De Poll Franse, Lonneke V ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

80 and over; Aged; Cancer; Characteristics; Colon; Internet; Patient reported outcomes; Population; Questionnaires; Rectum; Respondents; Survey methods

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPER; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGISTER; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAPER; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REGISTRIES; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84930370575     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3741     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-MoDe Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley &Sons; 2009
2. Centraal Bureau voor De Statistiek. 2014 Apr 16. StatLine: ICT gebruik Van personen naar persoonskenmerken URL: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71098ned&D1=33, 55-59, 93-95, 97-100, 102-104, 106-109, 112-113, 119, 124-133&D2=0&D3=0, l&HD=130422-1124&HDR=G2, G1&STB=T [accessed 2014-02-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6PQ18H4pD
3. Van De Poll-Franse LV, Horevoorts N, Van EM, Denollet J, Roukema JA, Aaronson NK, Profiles Registry Group. The Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship registry: scope, rationale and Design of an infrastructure for the study of physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivorship cohorts. Eur J Cancer 2011 Sep;47(14):2188-2194] [10.1016/j.ejca.2011.04.034
4. Cho YI, Johnson TP, Vangeest JB. Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-Analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof 2013 Sep;36(3):382-407. [10.1177/0163278713496425
5. Bech M, Kristensen MB. Differential response rates in postal and web-based surveys among olDer responDents. Survey Res Methods 2009;3:1-6
6. Van GelDer MM, Bretveld RW, Roeleveld N. Web-based questionnaires: the future in epiDemiology? Am J EpiDemiol 2010 Dec 1;172(11):1292-1298] [10.1093/aje/kwq291
7. Kwak N, Radler B. A comparison between mail and web surveys: response pattern, responDent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics 2002;18:257-273
8. Ritter P, Lorig K, Laurent D, Matthews K. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison. J Med Internet Res 2004 Sep 15;6(3):e29] [10.2196/jmir.6.3.e29
9. Duracinsky M, Lalanne C, Goujard C, Herrmann S, Cheung-Lung C, Brosseau J, et al. Electronic versus paper-based assessment of health-related quality of life specific to HIV disease: reliability study of the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(4):e115] [10.2196/jmir.3330
10. Callas PW, Solomon LJ, Hughes JR, Livingston AE. The influence of response moDe on study results: offering cigarette smokers a choice of postal or online completion of a survey. J Med Internet Res 2010;12(4):e46] [10.2196/jmir.1414
11. Whitehead L. Methodological issues in Internet-mediated research: a randomized comparison of internet versus mailed questionnaires. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e109] [10.2196/jmir.1593
12. Lozar Manfreda K, Bosjnak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, Vehovar V. Web surveys versus other survey moDes. International Journal of Market Research 2008;50:79-104
13. Hirsch O, Hauschild F, Schmidt MH, Baum E, Christiansen H. Comparison of Web-based and paper-based administration of ADHD questionnaires for adults. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(3):e47] [10.2196/jmir.2225
14. Zuidgeest M, Hendriks M, Koopman L, Spreeuwenberg P, RaDemakers J. A comparison of a postal survey and mixed-moDe survey using a questionnaire on patients' experiences with breast care. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(3):e68] [10.2196/jmir.1241
15. De Bernardo DH, Curtis A. Using online and paper surveys: the effectiveness of mixed-moDe methodology for populations over 50. Research on Aging 2012 Mar 30;35(2):220-240. [10.1177/0164027512441611
16. Gallagher S, Doherty DT. Searching for health information online: characteristics of online health seekers. J Evid Based Med 2009 May;2(2):99-106. [10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01021.x
17. Cresci MK, Yarandi HN, Morrell RW. The Digital DiviDe and urban olDer adults. Comput Inform Nurs 2010;28(2):88-94. [10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181cd8184
18. Selwyn N. The information aged: a qualitative study of olDer adults' use of information and communications technology. Journal of Aging Studies 2004 Nov;18(4):369-384. [10.1016/j.jaging.2004.06.008
19. Slegers K, Van Boxtel MP, Jolles J. Computer use in olDer adults: Determinants and the relationship with cognitive change over a 6year episoDe. Computers in Human Behavior 2012 Jan;28(1):1-10. [10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.003
20. Choi NG, Dinitto DM. The digital diviDe among low-income homebound olDer adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attituDes toward computer/Internet use. J Med Internet Res 2013 May;15(5):e93] [10.2196/jmir.2645
21. Werner JM, Carlson M, Jordan-Marsh M, Clark F. Predictors of computer use in community-dwelling, ethnically diverse olDer adults. Hum Factors 2011 Oct;53(5):431-447
22. Morris A, Goodman J, Brading H. Internet use and non-use: views of olDer users. Univ Access Inf Soc 2006 Nov 18;6(1):43-57. [10.1007/s10209-006-0057-5
23. Brody BL, Field LC, Roch-Levecq A, Depp C, Edland SD, Minasyan L, et al. Computer use among patients with age-related macular Degeneration. Ophthalmic EpiDemiol 2012 Aug;19(4):190-195. [10.3109/09286586.2012.672618
24. Van De Poll-Franse LV, Van Eenbergen MC. Internet use by cancer survivors: current use and future wishes. Support Care Cancer 2008 Oct;16(10):1189-1195. [10.1007/s00520-008-0419-z
25. Crabb RM, Rafie S, Weingardt KR. Health-related internet use in olDer primary care patients. Gerontology 2012;58(2):164-170. [10.1159/000329340
26. Dreisbach N, Axler F, Kotranski L, Malinowski WR, Ingerman S, Ramirez N, et al. The 139th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association. Assessing the digital diviDe among olDer adults residing in an urban and suburban metropolitan area URL: http://www.chdbdata.org/uploads/datareports/Internet&OlDer%20Adults-10.28.pdf [accessed 2015-02-11] [WebCite Cache ID 6WGMlKXHp
27. Centraal Bureau voor De Statistiek. 2014 16. Statline: ICT gebruik Van personen naar persoonskenmerken URL: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71098ned&D1=33-133&D2=3-6&D3=a&HDR=G1&STB=T, G2&VW=T [accessed 2014-03-05] [WebCite Cache ID 6PZ4pviQz
28. Centraal Bureau voor De Statistiek. 2013 Dec 13. Internetgebruik ouDeren fors toegenomen [Rapid increase internet usage among olDer people] URL: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/vrije-tijd-cultuur/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2013/2013-4005-wm.htm [accessed 2014-05-14] [WebCite Cache ID 6PZ4xQb09
29. Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Louwman WJ, Van De Poll-Franse LV, Coebergh JWW, editors. Results of 50 Years Cancer Registry in the South of the Netherlands: 1955-2004 (in Dutch). Eindhoven: Eindhoven Cancer Registry; 2005
30. Mols F, Denollet J, Kaptein AA, Reemst Peter H M, Thong Melissa S Y. The association between Type D personality and illness perceptions in colorectal cancer survivors: a study from the population-based PROFILES registry. J Psychosom Res 2012 Sep;73(3):232-239] [10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.07.004
31. Fricker RD, Schonlau M. AdVantages and disadVantages of Internet research surveys: eviDence from the literature. Field Methods 2002 Nov 01;14(4):347-367. [10.1177/152582202237725
32. Basnov M, Kongsved SM, Bech P, Hjollund NH. Reliability of short form-36 in an Internet-And a pen-And-paper version. Inform Health Soc Care 2009 Jan;34(1):53-58. [10.1080/17538150902779527
33. Hohw L, Lyshol H, Gissler M, Jonsson SH, Petzold M, Obel C. Web-based versus traditional paper questionnaires: a mixed-moDe survey with a Nordic perspective. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(8):e173] [10.2196/jmir.2595
34. Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, Hjollund NH. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-And-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res 2007;9(3):e25] [10.2196/jmir.9.3.e25
35. Shannon DM, Bradshaw CC. A comparison of response rate, response time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys. The Journal of Experimental Education 2002 Jan;70(2):179-192. [10.1080/00220970209599505
36. Smith AB, King M, Butow P, Olver I. A comparison of data quality and practicality of online versus postal questionnaires in a sample of testicular cancer survivors. Psychooncology 2013 Jan;22(1):233-237. [10.1002/pon.2052
37. Quigley B, Riemer R. Internet versus paper survey administration: preliminary findings on response rates. 2000 Presented at: 42nd Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association; November 7-9, 2000; Edinburgh, Scotland
38. Newburger EC. Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000. 2001 Sep. URL: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf [accessed 2014-04-23] [WebCite Cache ID 6RHQ41o4kE
39. Centraal Bureau voor De Statistiek. 2013 Dec. ICT gebruik Van huishouDens naar huishoudkenmerken URL: http://statline. cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71102ned&D1=3-4, 11-17&D2=0-10&D3=a&HD=080424-1708&HDR=T&STB=G1, G2 [accessed 2014-04-23] [WebCite Cache ID 6RHPrKP74
40. Van Den Berg MH, Overbeek A, Van Der Pal HJ, Versluys AB, Bresters D, Van Leeuwen FE, et al. Using web-based and paper-based questionnaires for collecting data on fertility issues among female childhood cancer survivors: differences in response characteristics. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(3):e76] [10.2196/jmir.1707
41. Millward P. First Monday. 2003 Jul 07. The 'grey digital diviDe': Perception, exclusion and barriers of access to the Internet for olDer people URL: http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/inDex.php/fm/article/view/1066/986 [accessed 2015-04-30] [WebCite Cache ID 6YB0Uo7Mx
42. Eurostat. Digital inclusion-Individuals URL: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do [accessed 2014-07-24] [WebCite Cache ID 6RIkZcyu9