• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.1097/00005650-199903001-00005
PMID:10098558
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。

相似文献

1
Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS survey instrument. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.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。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS41-9. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00005.
2
The use of cognitive testing to develop and evaluate CAHPS 1.0 core survey items. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.使用认知测试来开发和评估CAHPS 1.0核心调查问卷项目。医疗计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS10-21. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00002.
3
Special issues addressed in the CAHPS survey of Medicare managed care beneficiaries. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.医疗保险管理式医疗受益人的CAHPS调查中涉及的特殊问题。健康计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS69-78. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00008.
4
Special issues in assessing care of Medicaid recipients.评估医疗补助受助人护理情况的特殊问题。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS79-88. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00009.
5
Effects of Survey Mode on Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey Scores.调查模式对医疗保健提供者和系统消费者评估(CAHPS)临终关怀调查评分的影响。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Mar;66(3):546-552. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15265. Epub 2018 Jan 23.
6
Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.CAHPS 1.0调查指标的心理测量特性。健康计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS22-31. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00003.
7
Factors affecting response rates to the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study survey.影响健康计划消费者评估研究调查回应率的因素。
Med Care. 2002 Jun;40(6):485-99. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200206000-00006.
8
Making survey results easy to report to consumers: how reporting needs guided survey design in CAHPS. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.让调查结果易于向消费者报告:报告需求如何指导“医疗保健计划消费者评估(CAHPS)”中的调查设计。医疗保健计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS32-40. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00004.
9
Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS). Foreword.消费者健康计划评估研究(CAHPS)。前言。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS1-9. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00001.
10
Epilogue: Early lessons from CAHPS Demonstrations and Evaluations. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.结语:CAHPS示范与评估的早期经验教训。健康计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS97-105.

引用本文的文献

1
A Systematic Review of Strategies to Enhance Response Rates and Representativeness of Patient Experience Surveys.系统评价增强患者体验调查应答率和代表性的策略。
Med Care. 2022 Dec 1;60(12):910-918. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001784. Epub 2022 Oct 19.
2
Adjusting for Patient Characteristics to Compare Quality of Care Provided by Serious Illness Programs.调整患者特征以比较重病护理计划提供的护理质量。
J Palliat Med. 2022 Jul;25(7):1041-1049. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2021.0423. Epub 2022 Jan 21.
3
Hemodialysis patient characteristics associated with better experience as measured by the In-center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey.
经中心血液透析医疗保健提供者和系统(ICH CAHPS)调查评估,与血液透析患者更好体验相关的患者特征。
BMC Nephrol. 2018 Nov 28;19(1):340. doi: 10.1186/s12882-018-1147-3.
4
Correlation of Inpatient Experience Survey Items and Domains With Overall Hospital Rating.住院患者体验调查项目及领域与医院总体评级的相关性
J Patient Exp. 2015 Nov;2(2):29-36. doi: 10.1177/2374373515615977. Epub 2015 Nov 1.
5
Development and validation of an instrument to measure collaborative goal setting in the care of patients with diabetes.一种用于测量糖尿病患者护理中协作性目标设定的工具的开发与验证。
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017 Feb 20;5(1):e000269. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000269. eCollection 2017.
6
Rationale and study protocol for a multi-component Health Information Technology (HIT) screening tool for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in the primary care setting.针对初级保健环境中抑郁症和创伤后应激障碍的多组件健康信息技术(HIT)筛查工具的原理及研究方案。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2016 Sep;50:66-76. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.07.001. Epub 2016 Jul 6.
7
Can patients reliably identify safe, high quality care?患者能否可靠地识别安全、高质量的医疗服务?
J Hosp Adm. 2014 Oct 1;3(5):150-160. doi: 10.5430/jha.v3n5p150.
8
Demographic factors and hospital size predict patient satisfaction variance--implications for hospital value-based purchasing.人口统计学因素和医院规模可预测患者满意度差异——对医院基于价值的采购的启示
J Hosp Med. 2015 Aug;10(8):503-9. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2371. Epub 2015 May 4.
9
Constraints to applying systems thinking concepts in health systems: A regional perspective from surveying stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean countries.将系统思维概念应用于卫生系统的制约因素:来自东地中海国家利益攸关方调查的区域视角。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Nov 18;3(7):399-407. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.124. eCollection 2014 Dec.
10
The effect of response scale, administration mode, and format on responses to the CAHPS Clinician and Group survey.反应尺度、管理模式和格式对 CAHPS 临床医生和小组调查反应的影响。
Health Serv Res. 2014 Aug;49(4):1387-99. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12160. Epub 2014 Jan 29.