Cargando…

Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal

INTRODUCTION: The patient portal may be an effective method for administering surveys regarding participant research experiences but has not been systematically studied. METHODS: We evaluated 4 methods of delivering a research participant perception survey: mailing, phone, email, and patient portal....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kelly-Pumarol, Issis J., Henderson, Perrin Q., Rushing, Julia T., Andrews, Joseph E., Kost, Rhonda G., Wagenknecht, Lynne E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6199552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30370068
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.32
_version_ 1783365169312694272
author Kelly-Pumarol, Issis J.
Henderson, Perrin Q.
Rushing, Julia T.
Andrews, Joseph E.
Kost, Rhonda G.
Wagenknecht, Lynne E.
author_facet Kelly-Pumarol, Issis J.
Henderson, Perrin Q.
Rushing, Julia T.
Andrews, Joseph E.
Kost, Rhonda G.
Wagenknecht, Lynne E.
author_sort Kelly-Pumarol, Issis J.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The patient portal may be an effective method for administering surveys regarding participant research experiences but has not been systematically studied. METHODS: We evaluated 4 methods of delivering a research participant perception survey: mailing, phone, email, and patient portal. Participants of research studies were identified (n=4013) and 800 were randomly selected to receive a survey, 200 for each method. Outcomes included response rate, survey completeness, and cost. RESULTS: Among those aged <65 years, response rates did not differ between mail, phone, and patient portal (22%, 29%, 30%, p>0.07). Among these methods, the patient portal was the lowest-cost option. Response rates were significantly lower using email (10%, p<0.01), the lowest-cost option. In contrast, among those aged 65+ years, mail was superior to the electronic methods (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The patient portal was among the most effective ways to reach research participants, and was less expensive than surveys administered by mail or telephone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6199552
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61995522018-10-25 Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal Kelly-Pumarol, Issis J. Henderson, Perrin Q. Rushing, Julia T. Andrews, Joseph E. Kost, Rhonda G. Wagenknecht, Lynne E. J Clin Transl Sci Translational Research, Design and Analysis INTRODUCTION: The patient portal may be an effective method for administering surveys regarding participant research experiences but has not been systematically studied. METHODS: We evaluated 4 methods of delivering a research participant perception survey: mailing, phone, email, and patient portal. Participants of research studies were identified (n=4013) and 800 were randomly selected to receive a survey, 200 for each method. Outcomes included response rate, survey completeness, and cost. RESULTS: Among those aged <65 years, response rates did not differ between mail, phone, and patient portal (22%, 29%, 30%, p>0.07). Among these methods, the patient portal was the lowest-cost option. Response rates were significantly lower using email (10%, p<0.01), the lowest-cost option. In contrast, among those aged 65+ years, mail was superior to the electronic methods (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The patient portal was among the most effective ways to reach research participants, and was less expensive than surveys administered by mail or telephone. Cambridge University Press 2018-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6199552/ /pubmed/30370068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.32 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
spellingShingle Translational Research, Design and Analysis
Kelly-Pumarol, Issis J.
Henderson, Perrin Q.
Rushing, Julia T.
Andrews, Joseph E.
Kost, Rhonda G.
Wagenknecht, Lynne E.
Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal
title Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal
title_full Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal
title_fullStr Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal
title_full_unstemmed Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal
title_short Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal
title_sort delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal
topic Translational Research, Design and Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6199552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30370068
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.32
work_keys_str_mv AT kellypumarolissisj deliveryoftheresearchparticipantperceptionsurveythroughthepatientportal
AT hendersonperrinq deliveryoftheresearchparticipantperceptionsurveythroughthepatientportal
AT rushingjuliat deliveryoftheresearchparticipantperceptionsurveythroughthepatientportal
AT andrewsjosephe deliveryoftheresearchparticipantperceptionsurveythroughthepatientportal
AT kostrhondag deliveryoftheresearchparticipantperceptionsurveythroughthepatientportal
AT wagenknechtlynnee deliveryoftheresearchparticipantperceptionsurveythroughthepatientportal