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?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2024.112060
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 ,&nbsp;Heather J. Cleland ,&nbsp;Richard N. de Steiger ,&nbsp;Warwick J. Teague ,&nbsp;Peter A. Cameron ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Heather J. Cleland ,&nbsp;Richard N. de Steiger ,&nbsp;Warwick J. Teague ,&nbsp;Peter A. Cameron ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言: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之间的绩效非常重要。这些结果可以通过多种方式收集,但对不同类型损伤患者的不同随访方法进行比较的研究却很少。本研究旨在比较来自三个受伤登记处的随访数据,以量化患者对电话随访和在线随访的偏好,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响应率。方法对 2021 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月在三个登记处之一登记的成年(≥16 岁)患者进行基于登记处的队列研究。研究人员通过电话联系了出院后存活的患者,并让他们选择在受伤后 6 个月和 12 个月使用 EQ-5D-5L 进行电话或在线自我填写。比较了三个受伤队列和电话/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确定了三个队列中选择在线完成的预测因素。与重大创伤(31.0%)和烧伤(24.1%)患者相比,骨科创伤患者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更高(调整后的几率比[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%)完成两次随访的比例更高。结论虽然患者对电话随访的偏好和完成率较高,但研究结果表明,患者对完成伤后随访的偏好因受伤类型而异,因此允许患者选择其偏好的随访方法非常重要。因此,所提供的各种随访方法应反映不同患者群体的需求,这样才能制定出相应的算法或工作流程。引导某些患者采用特定的随访方法可以提高随访率和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Does injury type influence patient preference, response rates, and data completeness for online or telephone follow-up following injury? Post-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures in England: patient profiles and short-term outcomes Pancreaticoduodenectomy in high-grade pancreatic and duodenal trauma The Influence of Nerve Surgical Techniques at Time of Amputation on the Prevalence of Heterotopic Ossification in Transtibial Amputees Perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of injury prevention programs in the military: feedback from inside the trenches
×
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