Suppr超能文献

三种数据收集模型用于测量家长在糖尿病门诊护理方面的体验的随机比较。

A randomized comparison of three data collection models for the measurement of parent experiences with diabetes outpatient care.

机构信息

Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Nydalen, PO Box 4404, 0403, Oslo, Norway.

Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Sep 20;18(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0557-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare three data collection methods for the measurement of parent experiences with hospital outpatient care for child and adolescent diabetes, based on a randomised national trial in Norway involving both pen-and-paper and electronic response options.

METHODS

The sample frame was patients registered in the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry. Parents of patients were randomised into the following groups (n = 2606): group A, who were posted questionnaires with only a pen-and-paper response option (n = 859); group B, who were posted questionnaires with both an electronic and a pen-and-paper response option (n = 886); and group C, who were posted questionnaires with only an electronic response option (n = 861). The three groups were compared on response rate, background variables about respondents, main study results and survey costs. Statistical analysis included logistic regression to test group differences in response probabilities and multilevel linear regression to test differences in parent experiences.

RESULTS

The response rate was 61.8% for group A, 62.4% for group B and 41.6% for group C. The probability of answering was significantly higher for group A (OR = 2.3, p < 0.001) and B (OR = 2.3, p < 0.001) compared to group C. Respondent age, gender, education, living with the child and the degree of participation in consultations did not differ significantly between the three groups. Group differences in parent-reported experiences were small, varying from 1.0 (equipment and doctor contact) to 2.4 (outcome), on a scale from 0 to 100. Only one of 18 group differences was significant: the mixed group had significantly higher score than the electronic group on the organization scale (p < 0.05). The total cost of the electronic model was less than half the cost of the other models, and cost per response was 5.1 euros for the electronic model compared to 8.2 euros for group A and 7.6 euros for group B.

CONCLUSIONS

The models with pen-and paper questionnaire included had more than 20% higher response rate than the model with an electronic-only response option. Background variables and parent-reported experiences were similar between the three groups, and the electronic model was the more cost-effective model.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较三种数据收集方法,用于测量挪威全国随机试验中儿童和青少年糖尿病门诊就诊的父母体验,该试验同时涉及纸笔和电子应答选项。

方法

样本框架为在挪威儿童糖尿病登记处登记的患者。将患者的父母随机分为以下三组(n=2606):A 组,仅邮寄问卷和纸笔应答选项(n=859);B 组,邮寄问卷和电子及纸笔应答选项(n=886);C 组,仅邮寄电子应答选项(n=861)。比较三组的应答率、应答者背景变量、主要研究结果和调查成本。统计分析包括逻辑回归检验组间应答概率差异,以及多水平线性回归检验父母体验差异。

结果

A 组、B 组和 C 组的应答率分别为 61.8%、62.4%和 41.6%。与 C 组相比,A 组(OR=2.3,p<0.001)和 B 组(OR=2.3,p<0.001)的应答概率显著更高。三组之间应答者年龄、性别、教育程度、与孩子同住情况和咨询参与程度无显著差异。父母报告的体验组间差异较小,范围为 1.0(设备和医生联系)至 2.4(结果),量表范围为 0 至 100。18 个组间差异中仅有 1 个差异显著:混合组在组织量表上的评分显著高于电子组(p<0.05)。电子模型的总成本不到其他两种模型的一半,电子模型的应答成本为 5.1 欧元,而 A 组和 B 组的应答成本分别为 8.2 欧元和 7.6 欧元。

结论

纸笔问卷模型的应答率比仅电子应答选项模型高 20%以上。三组间背景变量和父母报告的体验相似,电子模型更具成本效益。

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