Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS): Methodological Considerations of a Field Trial in Slovenia
Matija AMBROŽ
Profilo Orcid, Candan KENDIR
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Paris, France
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational HealthAmsterdam, Netherlands
Profilo Orcid, Wienke BOERMA
Profilo Orcid e Zalika KLEMENC-KETIŠ
- Community Health Centre LjubljanaLjubljana, Slovenia
- University of Maribor, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family MedicineMaribor, Slovenia
- University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family MedicineLjubljana, Slovenia
Profilo Orcid 
Categoria dell'articolo: Original scientific article
Pubblicato online: 03 gen 2024
Pagine: 30 - 37
Ricevuto: 11 ott 2023
Accettato: 27 nov 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sjph-2024-0005
Parole chiave
© 2024 Matija AMBROŽ et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Introduction
Healthcare systems collect little information about the experiences and outcomes of care from the perspectives of patients. Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) is an OECD initiative to measure the outcomes and experiences of people living with chronic conditions, who are managed in primary care.
Objectives
To evaluate the feasibility of the methodology employed in the Field Trial of the PaRIS survey in Slovenia and propose adjustments to enhance sampling in the Main Survey.
Methods
In 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional observational study in 50 family medicine practices in Slovenia with a target of recruiting 70 patients per practice. We used the Slovenian version of the PaRIS questionnaires, and evaluated sampling and data collection.
Results
The sample contained 21 providers (42.0% response rate) and 454 patients (50.7% response rate). The provider sample did not differ from the population characteristics, while the patient sample differed significantly from the patient population. All providers completed the survey online, in 20.9±11.1 minutes and had 1.5±1.5 restarts. Most patients (74.9%) completed the survey online and needed 36.0±22.6 minutes, and the mean number of restarts was 1.4±2.2.
Conclusion
Based on the results, we recommend conducting a methodology test for quality assessment studies before initiating the main survey. Legal issues should be addressed and considered early when developing the methodology. It is also necessary to be aware of the feasibility of the study in practice, to avoid a low participation rate.