Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal

  • Issis J. Kelly-Pumarol, Perrin Q. Henderson, Julia T. Rushing, Joseph E. Andrews, Rhonda G. Kost, Lynne E. Wagenknecht
  • Journal:
    Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue 3 / June 2018
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    21 September 2018, pp. 163-168
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Introduction

    The patient portal may be an effective method for administering surveys regarding participant research experiences but has not been systematically studied.

    Methods

    We evaluated 4 methods of delivering a research participant perception survey: mailing, phone, email, and patient portal. Participants of research studies were identified (n=4013) and 800 were randomly selected to receive a survey, 200 for each method. Outcomes included response rate, survey completeness, and cost.

    Results

    Among those aged <65 years, response rates did not differ between mail, phone, and patient portal (22%, 29%, 30%, p>0.07). Among these methods, the patient portal was the lowest-cost option. Response rates were significantly lower using email (10%, p<0.01), the lowest-cost option. In contrast, among those aged 65+ years, mail was superior to the electronic methods (p<0.02).

    Conclusions

    The patient portal was among the most effective ways to reach research participants, and was less expensive than surveys administered by mail or telephone.