| Title |
Optimizing patient-reported outcome and risk factor reporting from cancer survivors: a randomized trial of four different survey methods among colorectal cancer survivors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11764-017-0596-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather Spencer Feigelson, Carmit K McMullen, Sarah Madrid, Andrew T Sterrett, J David Powers, Erica Blum-Barnett, Pamala A Pawloski, Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss, Virginia P. Quinn, David E Arterburn, Douglas A Corley |
| Abstract |
The goal of this study was to determine response rates and associated costs of different survey methods among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. We assembled a cohort of 16,212 individuals diagnosed with CRC (2010-2014) from six health plans, and randomly selected 4000 survivors to test survey response rates across four mixed-mode survey administration protocols (in English and Spanish): arm 1, mailed survey with phone follow-up; arm 2, interactive voice response (IVR) followed by mail; arm 3; email linked to web-based survey with mail follow-up; and arm 4, email linked to web-based survey followed by IVR. Our overall response rate was 50.2%. Arm 1 had the highest response rate (59.9%), followed by arm 3 (51.9%), arm 2 (51.2%), and arm 4 (37.9%). Response rates were higher among non-Hispanic whites in all arms than other racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001), among English (51.5%) than Spanish speakers (36.4%) (p < 0.001), and among higher (53.7%) than lower (41.4%) socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Survey arms were roughly comparable in cost, with a difference of only 8% of total costs between the most (arm 2) and least (arm 3) expensive arms. Mailed surveys followed by phone calls achieved the highest response rate; email invitations and online surveys cost less per response. Electronic methods, even among those with email availability, may miss important populations including Hispanics, non-English speakers, and those of lower socioeconomic status. Our results demonstrate effective methods for capturing patient-reported outcomes, inform the relative benefits/disadvantages of the different methods, and identify future research directions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 44 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2017.
All research outputs
#13,525,939
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#650
of 978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,696
of 421,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.