Suppr超能文献

使用基于网络问卷与纸质问卷的患者报告结局的应答率:老年结直肠癌患者两种邀请方式的比较

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

作者信息

Horevoorts Nicole Je, Vissers Pauline Aj, Mols Floortje, Thong Melissa Sy, van de Poll-Franse Lonneke V

机构信息

Centre of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2015 May 7;17(5):e111. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3741.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Improving questionnaire response rates is an everlasting issue for research. Today, the Internet can easily be used to collect data quickly. However, collecting data on the Internet can lead to biased samples because not everyone is able to access or use the Internet. The older population, for example, is much less likely to use the Internet. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry offers a platform to collect Web-based and paper questionnaires and to try different measures to improve response rates.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, our aim was to study the influence of two methods of invitation on the response rate. Our second aim was to examine the preference of questionnaire mode of administration (paper or Web-based) for the older patient in particular.

METHODS

To test these two invitational methods, 3406 colorectal cancer patients between ages 18 and 85 years received an invitation containing an access code for the Web-based questionnaire. They could also request a paper questionnaire with an included reply card (paper-optional group). In contrast, 179 randomly selected colorectal cancer patients received a paper questionnaire with the invitation (paper-included group). They could also choose to fill out the Web-based questionnaire with the included access code.

RESULTS

Response rates did not differ between the paper-optional and the paper-included groups (73.14%, 2491/3406 and 74.9%, 134/179, P=.57). In the paper-optional group, online response was significantly higher when compared to the paper-included group (41.23%, 1027/2491 vs 12.7%, 17/134, P<.001). The majority of online respondents responded after the first invitation (95.33%, 979/1027), which was significantly higher than the paper respondents (52.19%, 764/1464, P<.001). Respondents aged 70 years and older chose to fill out a paper questionnaire more often (71.0%, 677/954). In the oldest age group (≥80 years), 18.2% (61/336) of the respondents filled out a Web-based questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of difference in response rates between invitation modes implies that researchers can leave out a paper questionnaire at invitation without lowering response rates. It may be preferable not to include a paper questionnaire because more respondents then will fill out a Web-based questionnaire, which will lead to faster available data. However, due to respondent preference, it is not likely that paper questionnaires can be left out completely in the near future.

摘要

背景

提高问卷回复率是研究中一个长期存在的问题。如今,互联网可轻松用于快速收集数据。然而,在互联网上收集数据可能导致样本有偏差,因为并非所有人都能访问或使用互联网。例如,老年人群使用互联网的可能性要小得多。初始治疗后患者报告结局及生存长期评估(PROFILES)登记处提供了一个平台,用于收集基于网络和纸质的问卷,并尝试不同措施以提高回复率。

目的

在本研究中,我们的目的是研究两种邀请方式对回复率的影响。我们的第二个目的是特别考察老年患者对问卷管理方式(纸质或基于网络)的偏好。

方法

为测试这两种邀请方式,3406名年龄在18至85岁之间的结直肠癌患者收到一份包含基于网络问卷访问代码的邀请。他们也可以索要一份附带回复卡的纸质问卷(可选择纸质问卷组)。相比之下,179名随机选择的结直肠癌患者收到一份附带邀请的纸质问卷(包含纸质问卷组)。他们也可以选择使用附带的访问代码填写基于网络的问卷。

结果

可选择纸质问卷组和包含纸质问卷组的回复率没有差异(73.14%,2491/3406和74.9%,134/179,P = 0.57)。在可选择纸质问卷组中,与包含纸质问卷组相比,在线回复率显著更高(41.23%,1027/2491对12.7%,17/134,P < 0.001)。大多数在线受访者在首次邀请后回复(95.33%,979/1027),这显著高于纸质问卷受访者(52.19%,764/1464,P < 0.001)。70岁及以上的受访者更常选择填写纸质问卷(71.0%,677/954)。在最年长的年龄组(≥8岁)中,18.2%(61/336)的受访者填写了基于网络的问卷。

结论

邀请方式之间回复率缺乏差异意味着研究人员在邀请时可以不附带纸质问卷而不降低回复率。不附带纸质问卷可能更好,因为这样更多受访者会填写基于网络的问卷,这将使数据更快可用。然而,由于受访者的偏好,在不久的将来不太可能完全不使用纸质问卷。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99aa/4468744/63b932aaf987/jmir_v17i5e111_fig1.jpg

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