Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorWang, Katherine
dc.contributor.authorEftang, Cathrine N.
dc.contributor.authorJakobsen, Rune Bruhn
dc.contributor.authorÅrøen, Asbjørn
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-02T10:36:09Z
dc.date.available2021-02-02T10:36:09Z
dc.date.created2020-09-25T10:41:03Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationBMJ Open. 2020, 10(8), e030808.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2725759
dc.descriptionThis is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.en_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Gain an overview of expected response rates (RRs) to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical quality registry-based studies and long-term cohorts in order to better evaluate the validity of registries and registry-based studies. Examine the trends of RRs over time and how they vary with study type, questionnaire format, and the use of reminders. Design: Literature review with systematic search. Data sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, kvalitetsregistre.no, kvalitetsregister.se and sundhed.dk. Eligibility criteria: Articles in all areas of medical research using registry-based data or cohort design with at least two follow-up time points collecting PROMs and reporting RRs. Annual reports of registries including PROMs that report RRs for at least two time points. Primary outcome measure: RRs to PROMs. Results: A total of 10 articles, 12 registry reports and 6 registry articles were included in the review. The overall RR at baseline was 75%±22.1 but decreased over time. Cohort studies had a markedly better RR (baseline 97%±4.7) compared with registry-based data at all time points (baseline 72%±21.8). For questionnaire formats, paper had the highest RR at 86%±19.4, a mix of electronic and paper had the second highest at 71%±15.1 and the electronic-only format had a substantially lower RR at 42%±8.7. Sending one reminder (82%±16.5) or more than one reminder (76%±20.9) to non-responders resulted in a higher RR than sending no reminders (39%±6.7). Conclusions: The large variation and downward trend of RRs to PROMs in cohort and registry-based studies are of concern and should be assessed and addressed when using registry data in both research and clinical practice.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectPROMen_US
dc.subjectpatient reported outcome measureen_US
dc.subjectregistriesen_US
dc.subjectresponse rateen_US
dc.titleReview of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measuresen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020en_US
dc.source.pagenumber9en_US
dc.source.volume10en_US
dc.source.journalBMJ Openen_US
dc.source.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030808
dc.identifier.cristin1833371
dc.description.localcodeInstitutt for idrettsmedisinske fag / Department of Sports Medicineen_US
dc.source.articlenumbere030808en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel