Does an "EZ" Survey Improve the Data Quality of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Survey 3.1?

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Experience Pub Date : 2024-11-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23743735241297622
Ron D Hays, Julie A Brown, Charleen Mikail, Denise D Quigley
{"title":"Does an \"EZ\" Survey Improve the Data Quality of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS<sup>®</sup>) Clinician and Group Survey 3.1?","authors":"Ron D Hays, Julie A Brown, Charleen Mikail, Denise D Quigley","doi":"10.1177/23743735241297622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Completing self-administered patient experience surveys is challenging for many patients. We randomized adult patients receiving care from an urban safety net provider to complete the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS<sup>®</sup>) Clinician and Group Survey 3.1 (CG-CAHPS 3.1), or an \"EZ\" survey created using plain language principles. We compared response rates, item missingness, item-scale correlations, and reliability of patient experience scores based on 264 completed surveys (64% female, 66% Hispanic, 33% high school education or less). The CG-CAHPS 3.1 survey response rate was higher (20% vs 16%), and failure to follow skip instructions was more common for the EZ survey. Internal consistency reliability for multi-item scales was similar, but provider-level reliability was higher for the EZ than for the CG-CAHPS 3.1 survey measures. Cognitive interviews with patients are needed to assess whether the wording of the EZ survey is responsible for the lower response rates and more skip pattern errors. Future studies are also required to provide additional information about the psychometric properties of the CG-CAHPS 3.1 and EZ surveys.</p>","PeriodicalId":45073,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Experience","volume":"11 ","pages":"23743735241297622"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11565615/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735241297622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Completing self-administered patient experience surveys is challenging for many patients. We randomized adult patients receiving care from an urban safety net provider to complete the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Survey 3.1 (CG-CAHPS 3.1), or an "EZ" survey created using plain language principles. We compared response rates, item missingness, item-scale correlations, and reliability of patient experience scores based on 264 completed surveys (64% female, 66% Hispanic, 33% high school education or less). The CG-CAHPS 3.1 survey response rate was higher (20% vs 16%), and failure to follow skip instructions was more common for the EZ survey. Internal consistency reliability for multi-item scales was similar, but provider-level reliability was higher for the EZ than for the CG-CAHPS 3.1 survey measures. Cognitive interviews with patients are needed to assess whether the wording of the EZ survey is responsible for the lower response rates and more skip pattern errors. Future studies are also required to provide additional information about the psychometric properties of the CG-CAHPS 3.1 and EZ surveys.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
EZ "调查是否能提高医疗保健提供者及系统消费者评估 (CAHPS®) 临床医师和团体调查 3.1 的数据质量?
对许多患者来说,完成自填式患者体验调查具有挑战性。我们随机让接受城市安全网医疗服务提供者治疗的成年患者填写《医疗保健提供者和系统消费者评估》(CAHPS®)临床医生和团体调查 3.1(CG-CAHPS 3.1),或采用通俗语言原则制作的 "EZ "调查表。我们根据 264 份完成的调查问卷(64% 为女性,66% 为西班牙裔,33% 为高中或以下学历)比较了回复率、项目缺失率、项目量表相关性和患者体验评分的可靠性。CG-CAHPS 3.1 调查的回复率更高(20% 对 16%),EZ 调查中未遵循跳过指示的情况更常见。多项目量表的内部一致性可靠性相似,但 EZ 在提供者层面的可靠性高于 CG-CAHPS 3.1 调查措施。我们需要对患者进行认知访谈,以评估 EZ 调查表的措辞是否是导致应答率较低和跳过模式错误较多的原因。今后还需要进行研究,以提供有关 CG-CAHPS 3.1 和 EZ 调查的心理测量特性的更多信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Experience
Journal of Patient Experience HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
178
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluating Patient Experiences with Patient-Centered and Inclusive Care in Academic Obstetrics and Gynecology Outpatient Clinics. "It was not normal, and I had to find a doctor and tell him." Kenyan Women's Response to Cervical Cancer Symptoms. Factors Associated With Psychiatry Consultation for Musculoskeletal Trauma Patients. Does an "EZ" Survey Improve the Data Quality of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Survey 3.1? An Adaptive Pacing Intervention for Adults Living With Long COVID: A Narrative Study of Patient Experiences of Using the PaceMe app.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1