Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Apr 16, 2023
Date Accepted: Aug 31, 2023

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Implications for Electronic Surveys in Inpatient Settings Based on Patient Survey Response Patterns: Cross-Sectional Study

Gregory ME, Sova L, Huerta TR, McAlearney AS

Implications for Electronic Surveys in Inpatient Settings Based on Patient Survey Response Patterns: Cross-Sectional Study

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e48236

DOI: 10.2196/48236

PMID: 37910163

PMCID: 10652193

Implications for Electronic Surveys in Inpatient Settings based on Patient Survey Response Patterns: A Cross-Sectional Study

  • Megan E. Gregory; 
  • Lindsey Sova; 
  • Timothy R. Huerta; 
  • Ann Scheck McAlearney

ABSTRACT

Background:

Surveys of hospitalized patients are important for research and to learn about unobservable medical issues (e.g., mental health, quality of life, symptoms), but there has been little work examining survey data quality in this population whose capacity to respond to survey items may differ from the general population.

Objective:

To determine what factors drive response rates, survey drop-off, and missing data in surveys of hospitalized patients.

Methods:

Cross-sectional surveys were distributed on an inpatient tablet to patients in a large, midwestern U.S. hospital. Three versions were tested: one with 174 items and two with 111 items; one 111-item version had missing item reminders that prompted participants when they did not answer items. Response rate, drop-off rate (abandoning survey before completion), and item missingness (skipping items) were examined to investigate data quality. Chi-squared tests, Kaplan-Meyer survival curves, and distribution charts were used to compare data quality between survey versions. Response duration was computed for each version.

Results:

Overall, 2,981 patients responded. Response rate did not differ between the 174- and 111-item versions (81.7% vs. 83.0%, p = .53). Drop-off was significantly reduced when the survey was shortened (65.7% vs. 20.2% of participants dropped off, p < .00001). Approximately one-quarter of participants dropped off by item 120, with over half dropping off by item 160. The percentage of participants with missing data decreased substantially when missing item reminders were added (77.2% vs. 31.7% of participants, p < .00001). The mean percentage of items with missing data was reduced in the shorter survey (40.7% vs. 20.3% of items missing); with missing item reminders, the percentage of items with missing data was further reduced (20.3% vs. 11.7% of items missing). The median participant answered 2-3 survey items per minute.

Conclusions:

Hospitalized patients may have a higher tolerance for longer surveys than the general population, but surveys given to hospitalized patients should have a maximum of 120 items to ensure high rates of completion. Missing item prompts should be used to reduce missing data. Future research should examine generalizability to non-hospitalized individuals.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Gregory ME, Sova L, Huerta TR, McAlearney AS

Implications for Electronic Surveys in Inpatient Settings Based on Patient Survey Response Patterns: Cross-Sectional Study

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e48236

DOI: 10.2196/48236

PMID: 37910163

PMCID: 10652193

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.