Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased

  • Hip
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores are used to evaluate treatment modalities in orthopaedic surgery. The method of PRO collection may introduce bias to reported surgical outcomes due to the presence of an interviewer. This study evaluates post-operative PROs for variation of outcomes between survey methods—in-person, online, or telephone.

Methods

From 2008 to 2011, 456 patients underwent arthroscopic surgical treatment for acetabular labral tears. All pre-operative surveys were completed in the clinic during pre-operative visit. Two-year follow-up questionnaires were completed by 385 (84 %) patients. The PRO data were prospectively collected pre- and post-operatively using five tools: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADLS), Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale. Patients were grouped according to method of 2-year follow-up: in-person during follow-up visit (102 patients, 26 %), online by email prompt (138 patients, 36 %), or telephone with an interviewer (145 patients, 38 %).

Results

Pre-operative baseline PRO scores demonstrated no statistically significant difference between groups for mHHS, HOS-ADLS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Two-year post-operative PRO scores obtained by telephone were statistically greater than scores obtained in-person or online for mHHS (p < 0.001), HOS-ADLS (p < 0.001), and HOS-SSS (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates higher patient-reported outcome scores and greater improvement by telephone surveys compared to in-person or online. The variation of results between collection methods is indicative of a confounding variable. Clinically, it is important to understand these confounding variables in order to assess patient responses and guide treatment.

Level of evidence

IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beebe TJ, McRae JA Jr, Harrison PA, Davern ME, Quinlan KB (2005) Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. J Clin Epidemiol 58(4):421–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brokelman RB, Haverkamp D, van Loon C, Hol A, van Kampen A, Veth R (2012) The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Eur Orthop Traumatol 3(2):101–105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Buskirk TD, Stein KD (2008) Telephone vs. mail survey gives different SF-36 quality-of-life scores among cancer survivors. J Clin Epidemiol 61(10):1049–1055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Byrd JW, Jones KS (2000) Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 16(6):578–587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE (2007) The adult hip, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  6. Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, Lee JA, McCarthy JC (2003) The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res 406:75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cook C (2010) Mode of administration bias. J Man Manip Ther 18(2):61–63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. de Vries H, Elliott MN, Hepner KA, Keller SD, Hays RD (2005) Equivalence of mail and telephone responses to the CAHPS Hospital Survey. Health Serv Res 40(6 Pt 2):2120–2139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A (2007) A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:27. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoher J, Bach T, Munster A, Bouillon B, Tiling T (1997) Does the mode of data collection change results in a subjective knee score? Self-administration versus interview. Am J Sports Med 25(5):642–647

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hutchings A, Grosse Frie K, Neuburger J, van der Meulen J, Black N (2013) Late response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):218–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Irrgang JJ, Lubowitz JH (2008) Measuring arthroscopic outcome. Arthroscopy 24(6):718–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kemp JL, Collins NJ, Roos EM, Crossley KM (2013) Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery. The Am J Sports Med 41(9):2065–2073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim J, Lonner JH, Nelson CL, Lotke PA (2004) Response bias: effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(1):15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lall R, Mistry D, Bridle C, Lamb SE (2012) Telephone interviews can be used to collect follow-up data subsequent to no response to postal questionnaires in clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 65(1):90–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin OS, Schembre DB, Ayub K, Gluck M, McCormick SE, Patterson DJ, Cantone N, Soon MS, Kozarek RA (2007) Patient satisfaction scores for endoscopic procedures: impact of a survey-collection method. Gastrointest Endosc 65(6):775–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Link MW, Mokdad AH (2005) Effects of survey mode on self-reports of adult alcohol consumption: a comparison of mail, web and telephone approaches. J Stud Alcohol 66(2):239–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ludemann R, Watson DI, Jamieson GG (2003) Influence of follow-up methodology and completeness on apparent clinical outcome of fundoplication. Am J Surg 186(2):143–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lungenhausen M, Lange S, Maier C, Schaub C, Trampisch HJ, Endres HG (2007) Randomised controlled comparison of the Health Survey Short Form (SF-12) and the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) in telephone interviews versus self-administered questionnaires. Are the results equivalent? BMC Med Res Methodol 7:50. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-50

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ (2006) Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy 22(12):1304–1311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin RL, Philippon MJ (2007) Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 23(8):822–826. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Martin RL, Philippon MJ (2008) Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy 24(6):676–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McCarthy JC, Jarrett BT, Ojeifo O, Lee JA, Bragdon CR (2011) What factors influence long-term survivorship after hip arthroscopy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(2):362–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Plante C, Jacques L, Chevalier S, Fournier M (2012) Comparability of Internet and telephone data in a survey on the respiratory health of children. Can Respir J 19(1):13–18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Powers JR, Mishra G, Young AF (2005) Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Aust N Z J Public Health 29(2):149–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rhodes T, Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Guess HA, Hanson KA, Oesterling JE, Lieber MM (1995) Does the mode of questionnaire administration affect the reporting of urinary symptoms? Urology 46(3):341–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodriguez HP, von Glahn T, Rogers WH, Chang H, Fanjiang G, Safran DG (2006) Evaluating patients’ experiences with individual physicians: a randomized trial of mail, internet, and interactive voice response telephone administration of surveys. Med Care 44(2):167–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Salazar MK (1990) Interviewer bias. How it affects survey research. AAOHN J 38(12):567–572

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Segal JB, Wu AW (2013) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care 51(8 Suppl 3):S73–S79. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1d84

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Thorborg K, Roos EM, Bartels EM, Petersen J, Holmich P (2010) Validity, reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported outcome questionnaires when assessing hip and groin disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 44(16):1186–1196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E (2011) Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:117

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

One of the authors (B.G.D.) has received funding for research support from the American Hip Institute, Arthrex, Inc., MAKO Surgical Corp., Breg, ATI, and Pacira, receives royalties from Orthomerica, DJO Global and Arthrex, Inc., is a consultant for Arthrex, Inc., MAKO Surgical Corp., and Pacira, has stock in Stryker, and has patent applications pending related to arthroscopic labral reconstruction technique and kit, and hip brace (in process). One of the authors (B.G.D.) is a board member of the American Hip Institute and a member of the AANA Learning Center Committee. One of the authors (C.E.S.) receives salary support from the American Hip Institute. This study has received institutional review board (IRB) approval.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American Hip Institute, Westmont, IL, USA

    Kevin F. Dunne, S. Pavan Vemula & Benjamin G. Domb

  2. Hinsdale Orthopaedics, 1010 Executive Court, Suite 250, Westmont, IL, 60559, USA

    Benjamin G. Domb

  3. Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA

    Benjamin G. Domb

  4. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jon E. Hammarstedt

  5. Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    John M. Redmond

  6. NoVa Orthopedic and Spine Care, Woodbridge, VA, USA

    Asheesh Gupta

Authors
  1. Jon E. Hammarstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Redmond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asheesh Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin F. Dunne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Pavan Vemula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Benjamin G. Domb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin G. Domb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hammarstedt, J.E., Redmond, J.M., Gupta, A. et al. Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25, 50–54 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3802-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3802-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation