Chen Xiaoxue, Agiro Abiy, Nowell W Benjamin, Loud Sara, McBurney Robert, Young Kalen, Sutphen Rebecca, Bourquardez Clark Elizabeth, Burroughs Cristina M, Curtis Jeffrey R, Sreih Antoine G, Merkel Peter A, Haynes Kevin
HealthCore, Inc., 123 Justison Street, Suite 200, Wilmington, DE, 19801-5134, USA.
Global Healthy Living Foundation, Upper Nyack, New York, NY, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 25;20(1):462. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05325-z.
Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) have been employing and exploring different methods to engage patients in research activities specific to their conditions. One way to intensify patient engagement is to partner with payer stakeholders. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two common payer-initiated outreach methods (postal mail versus email) for inviting prospective candidates to participate in their initiatives.
This descriptive study linked members of a nationally-representative private insurance network to four disease-specific PPRN registries. Eligible members meeting diagnostic criteria who were not registered in any of the four PPRNs by 02/28/2018 were identified, and randomly assigned to either the mail or email group. They were contacted in two outreach efforts: first on 04/23/2018, and one follow-up on 05/23/2018. New registration rates by outreach method as of 8/31/2018 were determined by relinking. We compared registrants and non-registrants using bivariate analysis.
A total of 14,571 patients were assigned to the mail group, and 14,574 to the email group. Invitations were successfully delivered to 13,834 (94.9%) mail group and 10,205 (70.0%) email group members. A small but significantly larger proportion of mail group members, (n = 78; 0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] {0.42-0.67%}) registered in PPRNs relative to the email group (n = 24; 0.16, 95% CI {0.11-0.25%}), p < 0.001. Members who registered had more comorbidities, were more likely to be female, and had marginally greater medical utilization, especially emergency room visits, relative to non-registrants (52.0% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.05).
A health plan outreach to invite members to participate in PPRNs was modestly effective. Regular mail outperformed less costly email. Providing more value-add to participants may be a possible way to increase recruitment success.
患者驱动研究网络(PPRNs)一直在采用和探索不同方法,让患者参与针对其病情的研究活动。加强患者参与的一种方法是与支付方利益相关者合作。本研究的目的是评估两种常见的由支付方发起的外展方法(邮政信件与电子邮件)邀请潜在候选人参与其倡议的有效性。
这项描述性研究将一个具有全国代表性的私人保险网络的成员与四个特定疾病的PPRN登记处联系起来。确定了符合诊断标准但截至2018年2月28日未在四个PPRNs中的任何一个登记的合格成员,并将他们随机分配到邮件组或电子邮件组。在两次外展活动中与他们联系:第一次是在2018年4月23日,第二次跟进是在2018年5月23日。截至2018年8月31日,通过重新链接确定按外展方法划分的新登记率。我们使用双变量分析比较了登记者和未登记者。
总共14571名患者被分配到邮件组,14574名患者被分配到电子邮件组。邀请函成功送达邮件组的13834名(94.9%)成员和电子邮件组的10205名(70.0%)成员。与电子邮件组(n = 24;0.16,95%置信区间[CI]{0.11 - 0.25%})相比,邮件组中在PPRNs登记的成员比例虽小但显著更高(n = 78;0.54,95% CI{0.42 - 0.67%}),p < 0.001。与未登记者相比,登记者有更多合并症,更可能为女性,医疗利用率略高,尤其是急诊就诊率(52.0%对42.5%,p = 0.05)。
健康计划邀请成员参与PPRNs的外展活动效果一般。普通邮件的效果优于成本较低的电子邮件。为参与者提供更多附加值可能是提高招募成功率的一种途径。