Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys:: E-mail versus standard mail versus telephone

被引:69
作者
Harewood, GC [1 ]
Yacavone, RF [1 ]
Locke, GR [1 ]
Wiersema, MJ [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.05331.x
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVES: The dramatic growth of the Internet holds potential for use in survey distribution. Comparisons of electronic mail (e-mail) to traditional survey techniques are lacking. We compared standard mail, telephone, and e-mail modes of endoscopy satisfaction survey administration with respect to response rate, timeliness of response, response content, and cost-efficiency of responses. METHODS: An endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire consisting of seven core items from the modified Group Health Association of America-9 survey was distributed to patients after routine outpatient endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive the questionnaire by standard mail, telephone, or e-mail. Response rates and findings in the three groups were compared. The "nonresponders" to the standard mail and e-mail surveys were subsequently contacted by telephone to determine their level of satisfaction. RESULTS: The phone survey response rate (90%) was higher than e-mail (70%) or standard mail (85%), although e-mail was the most cost-efficient mode of survey delivery. There was no significant difference in satisfaction scores among the three groups. Nonresponders were significantly more satisfied than "responders." CONCLUSIONS: A survey technique utilizing e-mail with subsequent follow-up by telephone to nonresponders appears to be the most cost-efficient way to deliver a questionnaire. The satisfaction levels of the responders may underestimate the overall satisfaction of the population being surveyed. (C) 2001 by Am. Coll. of Gastroenterology.
引用
收藏
页码:3312 / 3317
页数:6
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Chronic prostatitis: Results of an Internet survey [J].
Alexander, RB ;
Trissel, D .
UROLOGY, 1996, 48 (04) :568-574
[2]  
*AM SOC GASTR END, 1999, ASGE PAT SAT SURV
[3]   Changing priorities for improvement: The impact of low response rates in patient satisfaction [J].
Barkley, WM ;
Furse, DH .
JOINT COMMISSION JOURNAL ON QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, 1996, 22 (06) :427-433
[4]   The origin, content, and workload of e-mail consultations [J].
Borowitz, SM ;
Wyatt, JC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (15) :1321-1324
[5]  
BRANGER PJ, 1995, METHOD INFORM MED, V34, P244
[6]   THE CANADIAN 4-CENTER STUDY OF ANESTHETIC OUTCOMES .2. CAN OUTCOMES BE USED TO ASSESS THE QUALITY OF ANESTHESIA CARE [J].
COHEN, MM ;
DUNCAN, PG ;
POPE, WDB ;
BIEHL, D ;
TWEED, WA ;
MACWILLIAM, L ;
MERCHANT, RN .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 1992, 39 (05) :430-439
[7]  
Davies A. R., 1991, GHAA's consumer satisfaction survey and user's manual, V2nd ed.
[8]  
DAVIES AR, 1986, HEALTH SERV RES, V21, P429
[9]  
DAVIS MS, 1971, PSYCHIAT MED, V2, P31
[10]   Medical information: From surgeon general to superhighway [J].
Deering, CM ;
Richardson, J ;
Wares, CG .
ANNALS OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND PARASITOLOGY, 1995, 89 (06) :579-591