FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3048448534> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3048448534 endingPage "2900" @default.
• W3048448534 startingPage "2899" @default.
• W3048448534 abstract "Where Are We Now? Long-term follow-up studies of various clinical conditions are invaluable, especially for providing insight into the natural history of these conditions [1, 3]. Long-term follow-up studies using questionnaires are important because they are cost-effective, have a low burden on respondents, and are generally accepted by patients and health institutions [5]. Determining which factors influence patient participation in these studies would greatly improve their reliability. As concerns of pandemics grow worldwide, self-reported outcome tools such as questionnaires will become especially important in evaluating treatment results. Exploring factors that increase the response rate may also decrease face-to-face medical consultations and improve the ability of virtual clinics to perform longer-term follow-up evaluations. Westenberg et al. [6] attempted to determine the demographic and clinical factors that are associated with higher or lower response proportions in long-term follow-up studies using questionnaires. The authors concluded that factors such as gender (that is, being a woman), a smaller number of researchers contacting patients, and a lower number of items in a questionnaire were independently associated with an increased likelihood that a patient would participate in long-term follow-up. Other notable findings in this study were the reduced response proportion at the end of the working week (Friday and Saturday) and longer follow-up time after surgery, which was also associated with a lower likelihood of participation. Although Westenberg et al.’s study group [6] mainly consisted of patients with hand and upper limb disorders, I assume that their findings will correlate to studies on other orthopaedic disorders. These findings are important to researchers because exploring these factors will improve not only the response rate in subsequent studies but also the completion rate, which may be more relevant in certain studies. Where Do We Need To Go? Although the outcome of this study was based on the response proportion, Westenberg et al. [6] recognized the interplay between contact proportion, response proportion, initial participation, and completion proportion, which has not been described in previous studies. The response proportion appears to be a function of the contact proportion, and both are affected by variable factors as stated above. However, the completion proportion of the study was mainly affected by researcher-related factors, such as the number of researchers contacting patients and length of the questionnaire. To improve the result of future studies, researchers could standardize these factors and target specific cohorts. Equally interesting is that the response proportion for questionnaires on Friday and Saturday was low [6]. At present, there is no study with a similar or contrasting finding. Although this result appears to be practical, it could equally be because of a decreased attempt by the researchers to contact patients on these days. Other studies mentioned in their paper used online surveys and showed a decreased response proportion on Saturday, with a normal response on weekdays [7] or a reduced response on Friday only [8]. In light of the apparent disagreement, further studies may be required. Westenberg et al.’s [6] work surveyed studies that had median study follow-up periods ranging from 3.7 to 11 years. Although the findings of this study might be applied to shorter-term clinical studies, researchers need to be aware that this may not be appropriate, and future research should see whether these findings apply to longer follow-up intervals. In addition, future studies might seek to determine whether steps to reconfirm certain patient information and study characteristics (for example, current address, employment status, and household income) during patient contact will increase follow-up percentages; they might, but Westenberg et al. [6] found that a higher number of items in study questionnaires resulted in a lower likelihood of patient participation, so I hope that future studies will identify a good balance for this important topic. How Do We Get There? To increase the response proportion, questionnaires needs to be as short as possible, and the complexity of the content needs to be considered. To assess complexity, the time it takes the patient to complete the questionnaire might be considered. This can be assessed by performing a pilot study on any proposed questionnaire before embarking on a full research study. Contacting patients by telephone is time-consuming and may require more than one researcher in larger studies. Westenberg et al. [6] found this was associated with a lower response proportion, so to address this issue, institutions might consider alternative sources such as mobile interactive health applications. This will be increasingly important as the world population is becoming more tech-savvy. So far, studies with patient self-reporting applications have been very promising and have even shown that these applications reduce healthcare costs [2, 4]. These mobile health applications have also been validated for completing questionnaires [9]. These applications could be accessed via different mobile devices, including wearable devices, which may be more appealing to the general population. Because the highest response proportion was in the evening of weekdays and Sunday, it may be best to perform a randomized controlled trial to further evaluate timing and increase the response proportion." @default.
• W3048448534 created "2020-08-18" @default.
• W3048448534 creator A5018179150 @default.
• W3048448534 date "2020-07-27" @default.
• W3048448534 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3048448534 title "CORR Insights®: What Factors Are Associated With Response Rates for Long-term Follow-up Questionnaire Studies in Hand Surgery?" @default.
• W3048448534 cites W2172173540 @default.
• W3048448534 cites W2298990204 @default.
• W3048448534 cites W2616352600 @default.
• W3048448534 cites W2767353377 @default.
• W3048448534 cites W2929198708 @default.
• W3048448534 cites W3029801668 @default.
• W3048448534 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000001430" @default.
• W3048448534 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7899423" @default.
• W3048448534 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32769541" @default.
• W3048448534 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3048448534 type Work @default.
• W3048448534 sameAs 3048448534 @default.
• W3048448534 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3048448534 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3048448534 hasAuthorship W3048448534A5018179150 @default.
• W3048448534 hasBestOaLocation W30484485341 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C61797465 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C121332964 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C144024400 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C149923435 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C1862650 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C512399662 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C61797465 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C62520636 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C71924100 @default.
• W3048448534 hasConceptScore W3048448534C74909509 @default.
• W3048448534 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W3048448534 hasLocation W30484485341 @default.
• W3048448534 hasLocation W30484485342 @default.
• W3048448534 hasLocation W30484485343 @default.
• W3048448534 hasLocation W30484485344 @default.
• W3048448534 hasOpenAccess W3048448534 @default.
• W3048448534 hasPrimaryLocation W30484485341 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W2086581780 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W2096837391 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W2731179596 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W2989465648 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W3016523364 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W3113324569 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W3193662951 @default.
• W3048448534 hasRelatedWork W4367669404 @default.
• W3048448534 hasVolume "478" @default.
• W3048448534 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3048448534 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3048448534 magId "3048448534" @default.
• W3048448534 workType "article" @default.