净启动因子评分反映患者对远程医疗就诊的意见:一种混合方法分析。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Telemedicine and e-Health Pub Date : 2024-12-27 DOI:10.1089/tmj.2024.0300
Mike Kohut, Tracy Jalbuena, Rachel Alfiero, John DiPalazzo, Eric Anderson, Jasmine Bishop
{"title":"净启动因子评分反映患者对远程医疗就诊的意见:一种混合方法分析。","authors":"Mike Kohut, Tracy Jalbuena, Rachel Alfiero, John DiPalazzo, Eric Anderson, Jasmine Bishop","doi":"10.1089/tmj.2024.0300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> In order to assess patient experiences of telemedicine, researchers and administrators use the net promoter score (NPS), based on a likelihood to recommend (LTR) question. However, there is reason to doubt validity of this metric for this purpose. We assessed the degree to which the LTR question reflects actual patient preferences about telemedicine. <b>Methods:</b> Using data from a patient experience survey collected in Spring 2020, we compared LTR responses to open comments. Through content analysis, we transformed comments into categorical variables and used those variables in a multiple logistic regression model to predict LTR responses. We also thematically analyzed comments to further elucidate our results. <b>Results:</b> Only about half the comments mentioned telemedicine at all. Around 6% of comments were wholly incongruent with LTR responses. In many comments, ideas about telemedicine were semantically entangled with ideas about providers. Our logistic regression found strong associations between sentiments expressed in comments and LTR responses. However, comments about telemedicine were relatively poor predictors for LTR compared to comments about the provider. <b>Discussion:</b> NPS, which is included on many patient experience surveys used by health systems across the United States, has limitations for use as a measure of the acceptability of telemedicine for patients. Patients have more than telemedicine in mind when responding to the LTR question, and ratings conflate attitudes about providers, office policies, and staff with the telemedicine modality. More direct measures are necessary for meaningful research on the acceptability and usability of telemedicine for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":54434,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine and e-Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Net Promoter Score as a Reflection of Patients' Opinions About Telemedical Visits: A Mixed Methods Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mike Kohut, Tracy Jalbuena, Rachel Alfiero, John DiPalazzo, Eric Anderson, Jasmine Bishop\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/tmj.2024.0300\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> In order to assess patient experiences of telemedicine, researchers and administrators use the net promoter score (NPS), based on a likelihood to recommend (LTR) question. However, there is reason to doubt validity of this metric for this purpose. We assessed the degree to which the LTR question reflects actual patient preferences about telemedicine. <b>Methods:</b> Using data from a patient experience survey collected in Spring 2020, we compared LTR responses to open comments. Through content analysis, we transformed comments into categorical variables and used those variables in a multiple logistic regression model to predict LTR responses. We also thematically analyzed comments to further elucidate our results. <b>Results:</b> Only about half the comments mentioned telemedicine at all. Around 6% of comments were wholly incongruent with LTR responses. In many comments, ideas about telemedicine were semantically entangled with ideas about providers. Our logistic regression found strong associations between sentiments expressed in comments and LTR responses. However, comments about telemedicine were relatively poor predictors for LTR compared to comments about the provider. <b>Discussion:</b> NPS, which is included on many patient experience surveys used by health systems across the United States, has limitations for use as a measure of the acceptability of telemedicine for patients. Patients have more than telemedicine in mind when responding to the LTR question, and ratings conflate attitudes about providers, office policies, and staff with the telemedicine modality. More direct measures are necessary for meaningful research on the acceptability and usability of telemedicine for patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Telemedicine and e-Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Telemedicine and e-Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2024.0300\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine and e-Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2024.0300","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了评估远程医疗的患者体验,研究人员和管理人员使用基于推荐可能性(LTR)问题的净启动子评分(NPS)。然而,我们有理由怀疑这个度量的有效性。我们评估了LTR问题在多大程度上反映了患者对远程医疗的实际偏好。方法:使用2020年春季收集的患者体验调查数据,将LTR回复与公开评论进行比较。通过内容分析,我们将评论转化为分类变量,并使用这些变量在多元逻辑回归模型中预测LTR响应。我们还对评论进行了专题分析,以进一步阐明我们的结果。结果:只有大约一半的评论提到了远程医疗。大约6%的评论与LTR的回答完全不一致。在许多评论中,关于远程医疗的想法在语义上与关于提供者的想法纠缠在一起。我们的逻辑回归发现评论中表达的情绪与LTR反应之间存在很强的关联。然而,与关于提供者的评论相比,关于远程医疗的评论相对较差地预测了LTR。讨论:NPS包含在美国各地卫生系统使用的许多患者体验调查中,但作为患者远程医疗可接受性的衡量标准存在局限性。在回答LTR问题时,患者考虑的不仅仅是远程医疗,而且评分将对提供者、办公室政策和工作人员的态度与远程医疗模式混为一谈。为了对患者远程医疗的可接受性和可用性进行有意义的研究,需要采取更直接的措施。
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
Net Promoter Score as a Reflection of Patients' Opinions About Telemedical Visits: A Mixed Methods Analysis.

Introduction: In order to assess patient experiences of telemedicine, researchers and administrators use the net promoter score (NPS), based on a likelihood to recommend (LTR) question. However, there is reason to doubt validity of this metric for this purpose. We assessed the degree to which the LTR question reflects actual patient preferences about telemedicine. Methods: Using data from a patient experience survey collected in Spring 2020, we compared LTR responses to open comments. Through content analysis, we transformed comments into categorical variables and used those variables in a multiple logistic regression model to predict LTR responses. We also thematically analyzed comments to further elucidate our results. Results: Only about half the comments mentioned telemedicine at all. Around 6% of comments were wholly incongruent with LTR responses. In many comments, ideas about telemedicine were semantically entangled with ideas about providers. Our logistic regression found strong associations between sentiments expressed in comments and LTR responses. However, comments about telemedicine were relatively poor predictors for LTR compared to comments about the provider. Discussion: NPS, which is included on many patient experience surveys used by health systems across the United States, has limitations for use as a measure of the acceptability of telemedicine for patients. Patients have more than telemedicine in mind when responding to the LTR question, and ratings conflate attitudes about providers, office policies, and staff with the telemedicine modality. More direct measures are necessary for meaningful research on the acceptability and usability of telemedicine for patients.

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
Telemedicine and e-Health
Telemedicine and e-Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
6.40%
发文量
270
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Telemedicine and e-Health is the leading peer-reviewed journal for cutting-edge telemedicine applications for achieving optimal patient care and outcomes. It places special emphasis on the impact of telemedicine on the quality, cost effectiveness, and access to healthcare. Telemedicine applications play an increasingly important role in health care. They offer indispensable tools for home healthcare, remote patient monitoring, and disease management, not only for rural health and battlefield care, but also for nursing home, assisted living facilities, and maritime and aviation settings. Telemedicine and e-Health offers timely coverage of the advances in technology that offer practitioners, medical centers, and hospitals new and innovative options for managing patient care, electronic records, and medical billing.
期刊最新文献
When Are Single Reader Evaluations Insufficient in Teledermoscopic Assessments? Analyses of a Retrospective Cohort Study. Same as It Ever Was. A Systematic Review of Telemedicine Solutions to Provide Psychological Interventions for Women Receiving Fertility Treatments. Experience of The National Emergency Tele-Critical Care Network. Post-Telemedicine Acute Care for Undifferentiated High-Acuity Conditions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?
×
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