Lincoln M. Tracy , Heather J. Cleland , Richard N. de Steiger , Warwick J. Teague , Peter A. Cameron , Belinda J. Gabbe
{"title":"受伤类型是否会影响患者对受伤后在线或电话随访的偏好、回复率和数据完整性?","authors":"Lincoln M. Tracy , Heather J. Cleland , Richard N. de Steiger , Warwick J. Teague , Peter A. Cameron , Belinda J. Gabbe","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.112060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"56 2","pages":"Article 112060"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does injury type influence patient preference, response rates, and data completeness for online or telephone follow-up following injury?\",\"authors\":\"Lincoln M. Tracy , Heather J. Cleland , Richard N. de Steiger , Warwick J. Teague , Peter A. Cameron , Belinda J. Gabbe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.injury.2024.112060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"volume\":\"56 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 112060\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324008040\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324008040","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does injury type influence patient preference, response rates, and data completeness for online or telephone follow-up following injury?
Introduction
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.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
期刊介绍:
Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.