Do Differential Response Rates to Patient Surveys between Organizations Lead to Unfair Performance Comparisons? Evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey

Medical Care

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 45-54

  Saunders, Catherine L ^a,b   Elliott, Marc N ^b   Lyratzopoulos, Georgios ^a,c   Abel, Gary A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cancer; healthcare quality; nonresponse; patient experience; Survey

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURVIVOR; CASE MIX; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; ICD-10; JOB PERFORMANCE; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LUNG CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; REVIEW; TEACHING HOSPITAL; TREATMENT RESPONSE; ENGLAND; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL PATIENT; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; INPATIENTS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84952871219     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000457     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Institute of Medicine. 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2001/Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm-A-New-Health-System-for-the-21st-Century.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2015.
2. Ludwig H, Mok T, Stovall E, et al. ASCO-ESMO consensus statement on quality cancer care. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1063-1064.
3. Asprey A, Campbell JL, Newbould J, et al. Challenges to the credibility of patient feedback in primary healthcare settings: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63:e200-e208.
4. Iacobucci G. Caution urged amid wide variation in response rates to friends and family test. BMJ. 2013;347:f4839.
5. Halbesleben JRB, Whitman MV. Evaluating survey quality in health services research: a decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias. Health Serv Res. 2013;48:913-930.
6. Johnson TP, Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA. 2012;307:1805-1806.
7. Davern M. Nonresponse rates are a problematic indicator of non-response bias in survey research. Health Serv Res. 2013;48:905-912.
8. Elliott MN, Zaslavsky AM, Goldstein E, et al. Effects of survey mode, patient mix, and nonresponse on CAHPS hospital survey scores. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(pt 1):501-518.
9. Groves RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Quart. 2006;70:646-675.
10. Groves RM, Peytcheva E. The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias-a meta-analysis. Public Opin Quart. 2008;72: 167-189.
11. Abel GA, Saunders CL, Lyratzopoulos G. Cancer patient experience, hospital performance and case mix: evidence from England. Future Oncol. 2014;10:1589-1598.
12. Paddison C, Elliott M, Parker R, et al. Should measures of patient experience in primary care be adjusted for case mix? Evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21: 634-640.
13. Roland M, Elliott M, Lyratzopoulos G, et al. Reliability of patient responses in pay for performance schemes: analysis of national General Practitioner Patient Survey data in England. BMJ. 2009;339:b3851.
14. Macmillan Cancer Support. Cancer Patient Experience Survey: Insight Report and League Table 2012-13. Available at: http://www.macmillan. org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Research/Keystats/2013CPESInsightBriefing FINAL.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2015.
15. Burki TK. Cancer care in northern England rated best in England. Lancet Oncol. 2012;14:e445.
16. Mayor S. Case mix and patient experiences of cancer care. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e54.
17. Department of Health. National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, 2010. National Report. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6742-1.
18. Elliott MN, Cohea CW, Lehrman WG, et al. Accelerating improvement and narrowing gaps: trends in patients' experiences with hospital care reflected in HCAHPS public reporting. Health Serv Res. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
19. Department of Health. National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, 2010. Guidance Document. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6742-1.
20. Department of Health. National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, 2010. [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 6742. 2011. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6742-1.
21. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2011. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 8th edition. AAPOR. http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Communications/AAPOR-Journals/Standard-Definitions.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2015.
22. Indices of deprivation, 2007. Available at: http://webarchive.national archives.gov.uk/20100410180038/http:/communities.gov.uk/com munities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/. Accessed November 3, 2015.
23. Carlin BP, Louis TA. Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall; 1996.
24. Saunders CL, Abel GA, El Turabi A, et al. Accuracy of routinely recorded ethnic group information compared with self-reported ethnicity: evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience survey. BMJ Open. 2013;3:6.
25. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2013.
26. Peytcheva E, Groves RM. Using variation in response rates of demographic subgroups as evidence of nonresponse bias in survey estimates. J Off Stat. 2009;25:193-201.
27. Hargraves JL, Wilson IB, Zaslavsky A, et al. Adjusting for patient characteristics when analyzing reports from patients about hospital care. Med Care. 2001;39:635-641.
28. O'Malley AJ, Zaslavsky AM, Elliott MN, et al. Case-mix adjustment of the CAHPS Hospital Survey. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(pt 2): 2162-2181.
29. Eselius LL, Cleary PD, Zaslavsky AM, et al. Case-mix adjustment of consumer reports about managed behavioral health care and health plans. Health Serv Res. 2008;43:2014-2032.
30. Bone A, Mc Grath-Lone L, Day S, et al. Inequalities in the care experiences of patients with cancer: analysis of data from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2011-2012. BMJ Open. 2014;4: e004567.
31. El Turabi A, Abel GA, Roland M, et al. Variation in reported experience of involvement in cancer treatment decision making: evidence from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. Br J Cancer. 2013;109: 780-787.
32. Lyratzopoulos G, Neal RD, Barbiere JM, et al. Variation in number of general practitioner consultations before hospital referral for cancer: findings from the 2010 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey in England. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:353-365.
33. Saunders CL, Abel GA, Mendonça S, et al. Who are the cancer patients not well represented by survey responders? Poster presentation at the National Cancer Intelligence Network conference, Birmingham. June 9th-10th. 2014.
34. Lasek RJ, Barkley W, Harper DL, et al. An evaluation of the impact of nonresponse bias on patient satisfaction surveys. Med Care. 1997;35: 646-652.
35. Chaix B, Billaudeau N, Thomas F, et al. Neighborhood effects on health: correcting bias from neighborhood effects on participation. Epidemiology. 2011;22:18-26.
36. Geneletti S, Mason A, Best N. Adjusting for selection effects in epidemiologic studies: why sensitivity analysis is the only "solution". Epidemiology. 2011;22:36-39.
37. Olson K, Groves RM. An Examination of Within-Person Variation in Response Propensity over the Data Collection Field Period. J Off Stat. 2012;28:29-51.
38. Fricker S, Tourangeau R. Examining the relationship between non-response propensity and data quality in two national household surveys. Public Opin Quart. 2010;74:934-955.
39. Tourangeau R, Groves RM, Redline CD. Sensitive topics and reluctant respondents demonstrating a link between nonresponse bias and measurement error. Public Opin Quart. 2010;74:413-432.
40. Kontopantelis E, Roland M, Reeves D. Patient experience of access to primary care: identification of predictors in a national patient survey. BMC Fam Prac. 2010;11:61.
41. Saunders CL, Abel GA, Lyratzopoulos G. What explains worse patient experience in London? Evidence from secondary analysis of the Cancer Patient Experience Survey. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004039.
42. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;324:1183.