Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26595223›Full record

ArticleMedical care2016

Do Differential Response Rates to Patient Surveys Between Organizations Lead to Unfair Performance Comparisons?: Evidence From the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Catherine L Saunders, Marc N Elliott, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Gary A Abel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Multilevel factors associated with nonresponse to patient-reported outcome measures in routine radiation oncology care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The patient and clinician perspective on 'early' bowel resection for terminal ileal Crohn's disease (EBRIC): protocol for a multicentre mixed-methods study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Catherine L Saunders*Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge†RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK‡RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA§Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Marc N Elliott
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Gary A Abel

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18180Cancer Research UK A18180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient surveys typically have variable response rates between organizations, leading to concerns that such differences may affect the validity of performance comparisons.

objectiveTo explore the size and likely sources of associations between hospital-level survey response rates and patient experience. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: Cross-sectional mail survey including 60 patient experience items sent to 101,771 cancer survivors recently treated by 158 English NHS hospitals. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, clinical diagnosis, hospital type, and region were available for respondents and nonrespondents.

resultsThe overall response rate was 67% (range, 39% to 77% between hospitals). Hospitals with higher response rates had higher scores for all items (Spearman correlation range, 0.03-0.44), particularly questions regarding hospital-level administrative processes, for example, procedure cancellations or medical note availability.From multivariable analysis, associations between individual patient experience and hospital-level response rates were statistically significant (P<0.05) for 53/59 analyzed questions, decreasing to 37/59 after adjusting for case-mix, and 25/59 after further adjusting for hospital-level characteristics.Predicting responses of nonrespondents, and re-estimating hypothetical hospital scores assuming a 100% response rate, we found that currently low performing hospitals would have attained even lower scores. Overall nationwide attainment would have decreased slightly to that currently observed.

conclusionsHigher response rate hospitals have more positive experience scores, and this is only partly explained by patient case-mix. High response rates may be a marker of efficient hospital administration, and higher quality that should not, therefore, be adjusted away in public reporting. Although nonresponse may result in slightly overestimating overall national levels of performance, it does not appear to meaningfully bias comparisons of case-mix-adjusted hospital results.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiasCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHealth Care SurveysHospitalsHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionQuality Indicators, Health CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26595223
PMCPMC4674144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.