Tracy Lincoln M, Cleland Heather J, de Steiger Richard N, Teague Warwick J, Cameron Peter A, Gabbe Belinda J
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Victorian Adult Burns Service, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia.
Injury. 2025 Feb;56(2):112060. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.112060. Epub 2024 Nov 22.
Collecting patient-reported outcomes in a systematic fashion is important to understand recovery trajectories and compare performance between different services and fields of care. These outcomes can be collected through a variety of means, but studies comparing different follow-up methods in patients with a variety of injury types are scarce. This study aimed to compare follow-up data from three injury registries to quantify patient preference for telephone versus online follow-up, determine factors associated with choosing online follow-up, and compare response rates based on the patient's preferred follow-up method.
A registry-based cohort study of adult (≥16 years) patients registered one of three registries from January 2021 to December 2021 was undertaken. Patients who survived to discharge were contacted by telephone and offered the option of telephone or online self-completion at six- and 12-months post-injury using the EQ-5D-5L. The three injury cohorts and telephone/online groups were compared for differences in characteristics, follow-up rates, and data completeness. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of choosing online completion in the three cohorts.
Data were retrieved for 8,049 patients. A greater proportion of orthopaedic trauma patients initially opted for online follow-up (41.0 %) compared to major trauma (31.0 %) and burns (24.1 %) patients. Orthopaedic and major trauma patients had increased odds of choosing online follow-up compared to burns patients (adjusted odds ratio [95 % confidence interval] 2.9 [2.2-3.7] and 2.1 [1.6-2.7], respectively). A greater proportion of major trauma patients (69.3 %) and burns patients (64.3 %) completed both follow-ups compared to orthopaedic trauma patients (52.4 %). The overall completion rates for the EQ-5D-5L were high.
While follow-up preference and completion were higher for telephone-based follow-ups, the findings suggest a patient's preference for completing post-injury follow-ups differs according to the type of injury they sustained, and that allowing patients a choice of their preferred follow-up method is important. The variety of follow-up methods offered should therefore reflect the needs of different patient groups, which may allow for the development of algorithms or workflow processes. Directing certain patients towards a particular follow-up method could deliver higher and more efficient follow-up rates.
以系统的方式收集患者报告的结果对于了解康复轨迹以及比较不同服务和护理领域的表现非常重要。这些结果可以通过多种方式收集,但比较不同损伤类型患者的不同随访方法的研究却很少。本研究旨在比较来自三个损伤登记处的随访数据,以量化患者对电话随访与在线随访的偏好,确定与选择在线随访相关的因素,并根据患者偏好的随访方法比较回复率。
对2021年1月至2021年12月在三个登记处之一登记的成年(≥16岁)患者进行了一项基于登记处的队列研究。通过电话联系出院存活的患者,并在受伤后6个月和12个月时提供电话或在线自我完成的选项,使用EQ-5D-5L进行。比较了三个损伤队列以及电话/在线组在特征、随访率和数据完整性方面的差异。使用多变量逻辑回归模型来确定三个队列中选择在线完成的预测因素。
检索到了8049名患者的数据。与重大创伤(31.0%)和烧伤(24.1%)患者相比,骨科创伤患者中最初选择在线随访的比例更高(41.0%)。与烧伤患者相比,骨科和重大创伤患者选择在线随访的几率增加(调整后的优势比[95%置信区间]分别为2.9[2.2 - 3.7]和2.1[1.6 - 2.7])。与骨科创伤患者(52.4%)相比,重大创伤患者(69.3%)和烧伤患者(64.3%)完成了两次随访。EQ-5D-5L的总体完成率很高。
虽然基于电话的随访的随访偏好和完成率更高,但研究结果表明,患者对完成受伤后随访的偏好因所遭受的损伤类型而异,并且允许患者选择他们偏好的随访方法很重要。因此,提供的各种随访方法应反映不同患者群体的需求,这可能有助于开发算法或工作流程。将某些患者导向特定的随访方法可以实现更高和更有效的随访率。