Suppr超能文献

比较对CAHPS调查问卷的电话回复和邮件回复。医疗计划消费者评估研究。

Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS survey instrument. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.

作者信息

Fowler F J, Gallagher P M, Nederend S

机构信息

Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston 02125-3393, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS41-9. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00005.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The Consumer Assessment of Health Plans (CAHPS) survey is designed to collect member experiences with getting medical care. The objective was to evaluate the comparability of answers to CAHPS questions when data are collected by mail and by telephone interview.

METHODS

Two studies comparing phone and mail responses used a pretest instrument with parallel samples drawn from Medicaid beneficiaries in California (n = 217 telephone, 97 mail) and adults with chronic conditions who had health insurance through the State of Washington (n = 98 telephone, 109 mail). A third study used a revised instrument with two parallel cross-section samples of adults covered through the State of Washington (n = 446 telephone, 609 mail). Questions covered respondents' experiences with getting medical care through their health plans.

RESULTS

In the first two tests, numerous significant differences were found in the rates at which questions that potentially did not apply to all respondents were answered: some ratings were more positive on the telephone. In the test of a revised instrument, nine of 58 comparisons differed significantly by mode. The systematic differences in response to questions that did not apply to all respondents were greatly reduced. Only one of four ratings and one of seven multi-item composite measures of quality of care were significantly different by mode.

CONCLUSION

Although further steps to reduce the remaining mode effects are needed, the data indicate that when the revised CAHPS questions are used, mode of data collection will have little effect on the key results.

摘要

目标

消费者健康计划评估(CAHPS)调查旨在收集会员获得医疗服务的体验。目的是评估通过邮件和电话访谈收集数据时,对CAHPS问题回答的可比性。

方法

两项比较电话和邮件回复的研究使用了一个预测试工具,样本来自加利福尼亚州医疗补助受益人群体(电话访谈217人,邮件调查97人)以及通过华盛顿州获得医疗保险的慢性病成年人群体(电话访谈98人,邮件调查109人)。第三项研究使用了一个修订后的工具,样本来自华盛顿州的两个平行横截面成年人群体(电话访谈446人,邮件调查609人)。问题涵盖了受访者通过其健康计划获得医疗服务的体验。

结果

在前两项测试中,对于一些可能并非适用于所有受访者的问题,回答率存在众多显著差异:电话访谈中的一些评分更为积极。在对修订工具的测试中,58项比较中有9项在方式上存在显著差异。对于并非适用于所有受访者的问题,回答中的系统差异大幅减少。在四项评分中只有一项以及在七项多项目综合护理质量指标中只有一项在方式上存在显著差异。

结论

尽管还需要采取进一步措施来减少剩余的方式效应,但数据表明,当使用修订后的CAHPS问题时,数据收集方式对关键结果的影响很小。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验