ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2024
Nonresponse Bias on Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals' Experience of Care Quality Measure Scores.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the magnitude of nonresponse bias on inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) experience of care survey data in patients with neurologic disorders. Design: Cohort study of patients at 2 IRFs. Patients reported experience of care via an IRF-administered survey as part of routine operations approximately 2 weeks after discharge. A partially overlapping sample of research participants completed a similar survey approximately 2 weeks and 30 days after discharge. Setting: Two inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Participants: Patients aged ≥18 years with neurologic disorders who were discharged from 2 IRFs. Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measures: Experience of care data collected via an IRF Survey (self-report or proxy responses) and a Research Survey (self-report only). Results: Of the 1055 patients admitted during the study period who met the age and diagnosis criteria, 490 (46.4%) completed one or both of the surveys. Of the 325 IRF Survey respondents, 202 were self-report, 99 were proxy respondents, and 24 were unknown respondents. Only patients completed the Research Survey (N=285). One hundred twenty patients completed both surveys, of which 7 were proxy IRF Survey respondents. IRF Survey respondents had higher cognitive function than nonrespondents; patients with spinal cord injuries were more likely to complete the IRF Survey than other patients. There were no differences in the proportions of patients answering favorably on the IRF Survey (all respondents) compared with the Research Survey, except for physician communication and discharge information. Mutual information analysis revealed agreement between the scores produced by the 2 data sources. Conclusions: There were subtle, potentially important differences in quality measure results across surveys, reflecting the extent to which patients are encouraged to complete experience of care surveys. There was higher agreement on questions about global hospital perceptions than specific aspects of patients' experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.