Getting physicians to open the survey: little evidence that an envelope teaser increases response rates

BACKGROUND: Physician surveys are an important tool to assess attitudes, beliefs and self-reported behaviors of this policy relevant group. In order for a physician to respond to a mailed survey, they must first open the envelope. While there is some evidence that package elements can impact physician response rates, the impact of an envelope teaser is unknown. Here we assess this by testing the impact of adding a brightly colored "$25 incentive" sticker to the outside of an envelope on response rates and nonresponse bias in a survey of physicians. METHODS: In the second mailing of a survey assessing physicians' moral beliefs and views on controversial health care topics, initial nonrespondents were randomly assigned to receive a survey in an envelope with a colored "$25 incentive" sticker (teaser group) or an envelope without a sticker (control group). Response rates were compared between the teaser and control groups overall and by age, gender, region of the United States, specialty and years in practice. Nonresponse bias was assessed by comparing the demographic composition of the respondents to the nonrespondents in the experimental and control condition. RESULTS: No significant differences in response rates were observed between the experimental and control conditions overall (p = 0.38) or after stratifying by age, gender, region, or practice type. Within the teaser condition, there was some variation in response rate by years since graduation. There was no independent effect of the teaser on response when simultaneously controlling for demographic characteristics (OR = 0.875, p = 0.4112). CONCLUSIONS: Neither response rates nor nonresponse bias were impacted by the use of an envelope teaser in a survey of physicians in the United States

Differences in demographic composition and in work, social, and functional limitations among the populations with unipolar depression and bipolar disorder: results from a nationally representative sample

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Existing literature on mood disorders suggests that the demographic distribution of bipolar disorder may differ from that of unipolar depression, and also that bipolar disorder may be especially disruptive to personal functioning. Yet, few studies have directly compared the populations with unipolar depressive and bipolar disorders, whether in terms of demographic characteristics or personal limitations. Furthermore, studies have generally examined work-related costs, without fully investigating the extensive personal limitations associated with diagnoses of specific mood disorders. The purpose of the present study is to compare, at a national level, the demographic characteristics, work productivity, and personal limitations among individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder versus those diagnosed with unipolar depressive disorders and no mood disorder.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2004-2006, a nationally representative survey of the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population, was used to identify individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder and unipolar depressive disorders based on ICD-9 classifications. Outcomes of interest were indirect costs, including work productivity and personal limitations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to those with depression and no mood disorder, higher proportions of the population with bipolar disorder were poor, living alone, and not married. Also, the bipolar disorder population had higher rates of unemployment and social, cognitive, work, and household limitations than the depressed population. In multivariate models, patients with bipolar disorder or depression were more likely to be unemployed, miss work, and have social, cognitive, physical, and household limitations than those with no mood disorder. Notably, findings indicated particularly high costs for bipolar disorder, even beyond depression, with especially large differences in odds ratios for non-employment (4.6 for bipolar disorder versus 1.9 for depression, with differences varying by gender), social limitations (5.17 versus 2.85), cognitive limitations (10.78 versus 3.97), and work limitations (6.71 versus 3.19).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The bipolar disorder population is distinctly more vulnerable than the population with depressive disorder, with evidence of fewer personal resources, lower work productivity, and greater personal limitations. More systematic analysis of the availability and quality of care for patients with bipolar disorder is encouraged to identify effectively tailored treatment interventions and maximize cost containment.</p

Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement: Does It Require Information From Patients?

Purpose: Since collecting outcome measure data from patients can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject to memory and nonresponse bias, we sought to learn whether outcomes important to patients can be obtained from data in the electronic health record (EHR) or health insurance claims. Methods: We previously identified 21 outcomes rated important by patients who had advanced imaging tests for back or abdominal pain. Telephone surveys about experiencing those outcomes 1 year after their test from 321 people consenting to use of their medical record and claims data were compared with audits of the participants’ EHR progress notes over the time period between the imaging test and survey completion. We also compared survey data with algorithmically extracted data from claims files for outcomes for which data might be available from that source. Results: Of the 16 outcomes for which patients’ survey responses were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes for back pain and 3 for abdominal pain had kappa scores above a very modest level of ≥ 0.2 for chart audit of EHR data and none for algorithmically obtained EHR/claims data. Of the other 5 outcomes for which claims data were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes from patient surveys and 3 outcomes from chart audits had kappa scores ≥ 0.2. Conclusions: For the types of outcomes studied here, medical record or claims data do not provide an adequate source of information except for a few outcomes where patient reports may be less accurate

Impact of discontinuity in health insurance on resource utilization

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study sought to describe the incidence of transitions into and out of Medicaid, characterize the populations that transition and determine if health insurance instability is associated with changes in healthcare utilization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>2000-2004 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) was used to identify adults enrolled in Medicaid at any time during the survey period (n = 6,247). We estimate both static and dynamic panel data models to examine the effect of health insurance instability on health care resource utilization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We find that, after controlling for observed factors like employment and health status, and after specifying a dynamic model that attempts to capture time-dependent unobserved effects, individuals who have multiple transitions into and out of Medicaid have higher emergency room utilization, more office visits, more hospitalizations, and refill their prescriptions less often.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Individuals with more than one transition in health insurance status over the study period were likely to have higher health care utilization than individuals with one or fewer transitions. If these effects are causal, in addition to individual benefits, there are potentially large benefits for Medicaid programs from reducing avoidable insurance instability. These results suggest the importance of including provisions to facilitate continuous enrollment in public programs as the United States pursues health reform.</p

Attitudes toward and Uptake of H1N1 Vaccine among Health Care Workers during the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: Though recommended by many and mandated by some, influenza vaccination rates among health care workers, even in pandemics, remain below optimal levels. The objective of this study was to assess vaccination uptake, attitudes, and distinguishing characteristics (including doctor-nurse differences) of health care workers who did and did not receive the pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine in late 2009. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In early 2010 we mailed a self-administered survey to 800 physicians and 800 nurses currently licensed and practicing in Minnesota. 1,073 individuals responded (cooperation rate: 69%). 85% and 62% of Minnesota physicians and nurses, respectively, reported being vaccinated. Accurately estimating the risk of vaccine side effects (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5-2.7), agreeing with a professional obligation to be vaccinated (OR 10.1; 95% CI 7.1-14.2), an ethical obligation to follow public health authorities' recommendations (OR 9.9; 95% CI 6.6-14.9), and laws mandating pandemic vaccination (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.3-4.1) were all independently associated with receiving the H1N1 influenza vaccine. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: While a majority of health care workers in one midwestern state reported receiving the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, physicians and nurses differed significantly in vaccination uptake. Several key attitudes and perceptions may influence health care workers' decisions regarding vaccination. These data inform how states might optimally enlist health care workers' support in achieving vaccination goals during a pandemic

Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making. METHODS: In this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives. RESULTS: We enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them. CONCLUSIONS: Using an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01502891