Comparing Inpatient Satisfaction Collected via a Web-Based Questionnaire Self-Completion and Through a Telephone Interview: An Ancillary Study of the SENTIPAT Randomized Controlled Trial

Sarah F Feldman, Nathanael Lapidus, Jacques Cosnes, Emmanuel Tiret, Laurent Fonquernie, Jean Cabane, Olivier Chazouilleres, Laure Surgers, Marc Beaussier, Alain-Jacques Valleron, Fabrice Carrat, Gilles Hejblum, Sarah F Feldman, Nathanael Lapidus, Jacques Cosnes, Emmanuel Tiret, Laurent Fonquernie, Jean Cabane, Olivier Chazouilleres, Laure Surgers, Marc Beaussier, Alain-Jacques Valleron, Fabrice Carrat, Gilles Hejblum

Abstract

Background: Assessing the satisfaction of patients about the health care they have received is relatively common nowadays. In France, the satisfaction questionnaire, I-Satis, is deployed in each institution admitting inpatients. Internet self-completion and telephone interview are the two modes of administration for collecting inpatient satisfaction that have never been compared in a multicenter randomized experiment involving a substantial number of patients.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare two modes of survey administration for collecting inpatient satisfaction: Internet self-completion and telephone interview.

Methods: In the multicenter SENTIPAT (acronym for the concept of sentinel patients, ie, patients who would voluntarily report their health evolution on a dedicated website) randomized controlled trial, patients who were discharged from the hospital to home and had an Internet connection at home were enrolled between February 2013 and September 2014. They were randomized to either self-complete a set of questionnaires using a dedicated website or to provide answers to the same questionnaires administered during a telephone interview. As recommended by French authorities, the analysis of I-Satis satisfaction questionnaire involved all inpatients with a length of stay (LOS), including at least two nights. Participation rates, questionnaire consistency (measured using Cronbach alpha coefficient), and satisfaction scores were compared in the two groups.

Results: A total of 1680 eligible patients were randomized to the Internet group (n=840) or the telephone group (n=840). The analysis of I-Satis concerned 392 and 389 patients fulfilling the minimum LOS required in the Internet and telephone group, respectively. There were 39.3% (154/392) and 88.4% (344/389) responders in the Internet and telephone group, respectively (P<.001), with similar baseline variables. Internal consistency of the global satisfaction score was higher (P=.03) in the Internet group (Cronbach alpha estimate=.89; 95% CI 0.86-0.91) than in the telephone group (Cronbach alpha estimate=.84; 95% CI 0.79-0.87). The mean global satisfaction score was lower (P=.03) in the Internet group (68.9; 95% CI 66.4-71.4) than in the telephone group (72.1; 95% CI 70.4-74.6), with a corresponding effect size of the difference at -0.253.

Conclusions: The lower response rate issued from Internet administration should be balanced with a likely improved quality in satisfaction estimates, when compared with telephone administration, for which an interviewer effect cannot be excluded.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01769261 ; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01769261 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ZDF5lA41).

Keywords: Internet; hospital information systems; patient reported outcome measures; patient satisfaction; quality of health care; questionnaires and surveys; telephone.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Sarah F Feldman, Nathanael Lapidus, Jacques Cosnes, Emmanuel Tiret, Laurent Fonquernie, Jean Cabane, Olivier Chazouilleres, Laure Surgers, Marc Beaussier, Alain-Jacques Valleron, Fabrice Carrat, Gilles Hejblum. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 23.08.2017.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of participants through the study.

References

    1. Ware JE Jr, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):247–63.
    1. Larsen DL, Attkisson CC, Hargreaves WA, Nguyen TD. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. Eval Program Plann. 1979;2(3):197–207.
    1. Babakus E, Mangold WG. Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services: an empirical investigation. Health Serv Res. 1992 Feb;26(6):767–86.
    1. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retailing. 1998;64(1):12–40.
    1. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J Marketing. 1985;49(4):41–50. doi: 10.2307/1251430.
    1. Goldstein E, Farquhar M, Crofton C, Darby C, Garfinkel S. Measuring hospital care from the patients' perspective: an overview of the CAHPS hospital survey development process. Health Serv Res. 2005 Dec;40(6 Pt 2):1977–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00477.x.
    1. Weidmer BA, Brach C, Slaughter ME, Hays RD. Development of items to assess patients' health literacy experiences at hospitals for the consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (CAHPS) hospital survey. Med Care. 2012 Sep;50(9 Suppl 2):S12–21. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31826524a0.
    1. Wong EL, Coulter A, Cheung AW, Yam CH, Yeoh EK, Griffiths SM. Patient experiences with public hospital care: first benchmark survey in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2012 Oct;18(5):371–80.
    1. Wong EL, Coulter A, Hewitson P, Cheung AW, Yam CH, Lui SF, Tam WW, Yeoh E. Patient experience and satisfaction with inpatient service: development of short form survey instrument measuring the core aspect of inpatient experience. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122299. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122299.
    1. DeCourcy A, West E, Barron D. The national adult inpatient survey conducted in the English national health service from 2002 to 2009: how have the data been used and what do we know as a result? BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Mar 21;12:71. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-71.
    1. Legifrance. [2016-11-14]. Arrêté du 22 juin 2012 relatif au modèle de questionnaire à utiliser lors de la mise en œuvre de l'enquête téléphonique de satisfaction des patients hospitalisés (I-SATIS) .
    1. Isaac T, Zaslavsky AM, Cleary PD, Landon BE. The relationship between patients' perception of care and measures of hospital quality and safety. Health Serv Res. 2010 Aug;45(4):1024–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01122.x.
    1. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, Bertakis KD, Franks P. The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Mar 12;172(5):405–11. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1662.
    1. Roster CA, Rogers RD, Albaum G, Klein D. A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. In J Market Res. 2004;46(3):359–73.
    1. Braunsberger K, Wybenga H, Gates R. A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys. J Bus Res. 2007 Jul;60(7):758–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.015.
    1. Sinclair M, O'Toole J, Malawaraarachchi M, Leder K. Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:132. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-132.
    1. Yang M, Tan EC. Web-based and telephone surveys to assess public perception toward the national health insurance in taiwan: a comparison of cost and results. Interact J Med Res. 2015 Apr 17;4(2):e9. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.4090.
    1. Gombault V. L'internet de plus en plus prisé, l'internaute de plus en plus mobile. INSEE Premiere. 2013 Jun;1452:1–4.
    1. Basnov M, Kongsved SM, Bech P, Hjollund NH. Reliability of short form-36 in an internet- and a pen-and-paper version. Inform Health Soc Care. 2009 Jan;34(1):53–8. doi: 10.1080/17538150902779527.
    1. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, de Groen PC. Utility of Web-based assessment of patient satisfaction with endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 May;98(5):1016–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07400.x.
    1. Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, Hjollund NH. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(3):e25. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.3.e25.
    1. Dijkstra W. How interviewer variance can bias the results of research on interviewer effects. Qual Quant. 1983 Jun;17(3):179–87. doi: 10.1007/BF00167582.
    1. Kreuter F, Presser S, Tourangeau R. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opin Q. 2009 Jan 26;72(5):847–65. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn063.
    1. Zuidgeest M, Hendriks M, Koopman L, Spreeuwenberg P, Rademakers J. A comparison of a postal survey and mixed-mode survey using a questionnaire on patients' experiences with breast care. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3):e68. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1241.
    1. Wu RC, Thorpe K, Ross H, Micevski V, Marquez C, Straus SE. Comparing administration of questionnaires via the internet to pen-and-paper in patients with heart failure: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(1):e3. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1106.
    1. Couturier B, Carrat F, Hejblum G. Comparing patients' opinions on the hospital discharge process collected with a self-reported questionnaire completed via the internet or through a telephone survey: an ancillary study of the SENTIPAT randomized controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jun 24;17(6):e158. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4379.
    1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hcahpsonline. 2016. [2016-11-14]. HCAHPS hospital survey .
    1. Kemp KA, Chan N, McCormack B, Douglas-England K. Drivers of inpatient hospital experience using the HCAHPS survey in a Canadian setting. Health Serv Res. 2015 Aug;50(4):982–97. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12271.
    1. . [2015-06-11]. Sentinel patients: value of an information system collecting patient's own report on his healthcare management (SENTIPAT) .
    1. Social-sante.gouv. 2013. [2016-11-14]. Fiche descriptive de l’indicateur de mesure de la satisfaction des patients hospitalisés en médecine, chirurgie ou obstétrique (MCO) .
    1. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? an examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98–104. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.98.
    1. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155–9.
    1. Good PI. Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests Of Hypotheses. New York, NY: Springer; 2005. pp. 1–314.
    1. R Core Team . R-project. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; [2016-11-14]. R: a language and environment for statistical computing .
    1. Elliott MN, Zaslavsky AM, Goldstein E, Lehrman W, Hambarsoomians K, Beckett MK, Giordano L. Effects of survey mode, patient mix, and nonresponse on CAHPS hospital survey scores. Health Serv Res. 2009 Apr;44(2 Pt 1):501–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00914.x.
    1. Dillman DA, Phelps G, Tortora R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J, Messer BL. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc Sci Res. 2009 Mar;38(1):1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner