Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of participants and non-participants in patient-reported outcome surveys: the case of Assessment of Patterns of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Congenital Heart disease – International Study
University West, Department of Health Sciences, Section for nursing - graduate level. The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Institute of Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karolinska University Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Umeå University, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg, Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), Gothenburg, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Cardiology in the Young, ISSN 1047-9511, E-ISSN 1467-1107, Vol. 27, no 3, 427-434 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The last decade has seen a vast increase in the use of patient-reported outcomes. As patient-reported outcomes are used in order to capture patients’ perspectives of their health and illness, it is a prerequisite for accurate patient-reported outcome evaluations to use representative samples. In order to evaluate representativeness, the present study focussed on the comparison between participants and non-participants in the Swedish branch of the international study APPROACH-IS (Assessment of Patterns of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Congenital Heart disease – International Study), regarding demographic, clinical, and health status characteristics. Methods: Eligible patients for APPROACH-IS were identified and selected from SWEDCON, the Swedish registry for congenital heart disease (CHD). Overall, 912 eligible patients were identified, of whom 471 participated, 398 did not participate, and 43 were either unreachable or declined to participate in APPROACH-IS. The participants and non-participants were compared in terms of statistical significance and effect sizes. Results: Significant differences were observed between participants and non-participants for sex, age, primary diagnosis, number of cardiac operations, and fatigue; however, the effect sizes were in general small, except for the difference in primary diagnosis. No differences between the two groups were found in number of catheterisations, implanted device, the distribution of NYHA functional class, or health status and symptoms. Conclusions: This study shows that participants and non-participants are relatively comparable groups, which confirms the representativeness of the participants. The Swedish data from APPROACH-IS can therefore be reliably generalised to the population of adults with CHD in Sweden. © Cambridge University Press 2016

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 27, no 3, 427-434 p.
Keyword [en]
Adults; comparison; congenital; heart defect; multicentre study; patient-reported outcome
National Category
Nursing
Research subject
NURSING AND PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE, Nursing science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hv:diva-10602DOI: 10.1017/S1047951116000676ISI: 000400475000004Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84966470677OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hv-10602DiVA: diva2:1065148
Note

Published online: 11 May 2016

Available from: 2017-01-13 Created: 2017-01-13 Last updated: 2017-05-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Berghammer, Malin
By organisation
Section for nursing - graduate level
In the same journal
Cardiology in the Young
Nursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 4 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf