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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |