de Vries Han, Elliott Marc N, Hepner Kimberly A, Keller San D, Hays Ron D
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2005 Dec;40(6 Pt 2):2120-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00479.x.
To estimate the effect of survey mode (mail versus telephone) on reports and ratings of hospital care.
DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The total sample included 20,826 patients discharged from a group of 24 distinct hospitals in three states (Arizona, Maryland, New York). We collected CAHPS data in 2003 by mail and telephone from 9,504 patients, of whom 39 percent responded by telephone and 61 percent by mail.
We estimated mode effects in an observational design, using both propensity score blocking and (ordered) logistic regression on covariates. We used variables derived from administrative data (either included as covariates in the regression function or used in estimating the propensity score) grouped in three categories: individual characteristics, characteristics of the stay and hospital, and survey administration variables.
DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We mailed a 66-item questionnaire to everyone in the sample and followed up by telephone with those who did not respond.
We found significant (p<.01) mode effects for 13 of the 21 questions examined in this study. The maximum magnitude of the survey mode effect was an 11 percentage-point difference in the probability of a "yes" response to one of the survey questions. Telephone respondents were more likely to rate care positively and health status negatively, compared with mail respondents. Standard regression-based case-mix adjustment captured much of the mode effects detected by propensity score techniques in this application.
Telephone mode increases the propensity for more favorable evaluations of care for more than half of the items examined. This suggests that mode of administration should be standardized or carefully adjusted for. Alternatively, further item development may minimize the sensitivity of items to mode of data collection.
评估调查方式(邮寄与电话)对医院护理报告及评分的影响。
数据来源/研究背景:总样本包括来自亚利桑那州、马里兰州、纽约州三个州24家不同医院的20,826名出院患者。2003年,我们通过邮寄和电话方式从9,504名患者中收集了CAHPS数据,其中39%的患者通过电话回复,61%的患者通过邮寄回复。
我们在一项观察性设计中评估方式效应,对协变量使用倾向得分分层法和(有序)逻辑回归。我们使用了从行政数据中得出的变量(要么作为回归函数中的协变量,要么用于估计倾向得分),这些变量分为三类:个体特征、住院和医院特征以及调查管理变量。
数据收集/提取方法:我们向样本中的每个人邮寄了一份包含66个条目的问卷,并对未回复者进行电话随访。
在本研究中所考察的21个问题中,我们发现13个问题存在显著(p<.01)的方式效应。调查方式效应的最大幅度是对其中一个调查问题回答“是”的概率相差11个百分点。与邮寄回复者相比,电话回复者更倾向于对护理给予积极评价,而对健康状况给予消极评价。在本应用中,基于标准回归的病例组合调整捕捉到了倾向得分技术检测到的大部分方式效应。
电话方式增加了对超过半数所考察项目给予更有利护理评价的倾向。这表明管理方式应标准化或进行仔细调整。或者,进一步的项目开发可能会使项目对数据收集方式的敏感性降至最低。