International journal of orthopaedic and trauma nursing · 2026
Collecting patient-reported data among patients with major lower extremity amputation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hulsbæk Signe, Kristensen Morten Tange, Hansen Rehne Lessmann, Hallett Maya Fey, Madsen Ulla Riis
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate two methods for collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after major lower extremity amputation (MLEA): digital distribution via e-Boks and postal mail. The evaluation compared response rates, respondent characteristics, distribution costs, and explored patient-perceived barriers to responding.
METHODS: A mixed-methods study nested within the Danish Amputation Database (DanAmp). Quantitative data on response rates and patient characteristics at 3- and 6-month follow-up were analyzed descriptively, with between-group comparisons using appropriate statistical tests. Costs were calculated per questionnaire from a distribution perspective. Semi-structured telephone interviews with a subsample of non-respondents were analyzed using content analysis.
RESULTS: Of 263 consenting patients, 78% received questionnaires via e-Boks and 22% by postal mail. Overall response rates were 62% at 3 months and 61% at 6 months. Digital distribution achieved higher response rates than postal mail at both 3 months (67% vs. 39%) and 6 months (67% vs. 36%). Complete responses were more frequent in the digital group. Responders were younger and had better mobility than non-responders, indicating potential underrepresentation of frailer individuals. Digital distribution was markedly more cost-efficient compared with postal mail. Interviews identified four main barriers: perceived relevance, questionnaire format, life disruption following amputation, and limited competencies.
CONCLUSION: Digital PRO distribution via e-Boks is feasible, cost-efficient, and yields higher response rates than postal mail following MLEA. However, multimodal strategies are recommended to ensure representativeness and equitable inclusion of digitally excluded patients.
METHODS: A mixed-methods study nested within the Danish Amputation Database (DanAmp). Quantitative data on response rates and patient characteristics at 3- and 6-month follow-up were analyzed descriptively, with between-group comparisons using appropriate statistical tests. Costs were calculated per questionnaire from a distribution perspective. Semi-structured telephone interviews with a subsample of non-respondents were analyzed using content analysis.
RESULTS: Of 263 consenting patients, 78% received questionnaires via e-Boks and 22% by postal mail. Overall response rates were 62% at 3 months and 61% at 6 months. Digital distribution achieved higher response rates than postal mail at both 3 months (67% vs. 39%) and 6 months (67% vs. 36%). Complete responses were more frequent in the digital group. Responders were younger and had better mobility than non-responders, indicating potential underrepresentation of frailer individuals. Digital distribution was markedly more cost-efficient compared with postal mail. Interviews identified four main barriers: perceived relevance, questionnaire format, life disruption following amputation, and limited competencies.
CONCLUSION: Digital PRO distribution via e-Boks is feasible, cost-efficient, and yields higher response rates than postal mail following MLEA. However, multimodal strategies are recommended to ensure representativeness and equitable inclusion of digitally excluded patients.