BackgroundPaper questionnaires have traditionally been the first choice for data collection in research. However, declining response rates over the past decade have increased the risk of selection bias in cross-sectional studies. The growing use of the Internet offers new ways of collecting data, but trials using Web-based questionnaires have so far seen mixed results. A secure, online digital mailbox (e-Boks) linked to a civil registration number became mandatory for all Danish citizens in 2014 (exemption granted only in extraordinary cases). Approximately 89% of the Danish population have a digital mailbox, which is used for correspondence with public authorities.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare response rates, completeness of data, and financial costs for different invitation methods: traditional surface mail and digital mail.MethodsWe designed a cross-sectional comparative study. An invitation to participate in a survey on help-seeking behavior in out-of-hours care was sent to two groups of randomly selected citizens from age groups 30-39 and 50-59 years and parents to those aged 0-4 years using either traditional surface mail (paper group) or digital mail sent to a secure online mailbox (digital group). Costs per respondent were measured by adding up all costs for handling, dispatch, printing, and work salary and then dividing the total figure by the number of respondents. Data completeness was assessed by comparing the number of missing values between the two methods. Socioeconomic variables (age, gender, family income, education duration, immigrant status, and job status) were compared both between respondents and nonrespondents and within these groups to evaluate the degree of selection bias.ResultsA total 3600 citizens were invited in each group; 1303 (36.29%) responded to the digital invitation and 1653 (45.99%) to the paper invitation (difference 9.66%, 95% CI 7.40-11.92). The costs were €1.51 per respondent for the digital group and €15.67 for paper group respondents. Paper questionnaires generally had more missing values; this was significant in five of 17 variables (P<.05). Substantial differences were found in the socioeconomic variables between respondents and nonrespondents, whereas only minor differences were seen within the groups of respondents and nonrespondents.ConclusionsAlthough we found lower response rates for Web-based invitations, this solution was more cost-effective (by a factor of 10) and had slightly lower numbers of missing values than questionnaires sent with paper invitations. Analyses of socioeconomic variables showed almost no difference between nonrespondents in both groups, which could imply that the lower response rate in the digital group does not necessarily increase the level of selection bias. Invitations to questionnaire studies via digital mail may be an excellent option for collecting research data in the future. This study may serve as the foundational pillar of digital data collection in health care research in Scandinavia and other countries considering implementing s...

Objective: Acute out-of-hours (OOH) healthcare is challenged by potentially long waiting time for callers in acute need of medical aid. OOH callers must usually wait in line, even when contacting for highly urgent or life-threatening conditions. We tested an emergency access button (EAB), which allowed OOH callers to bypass the waiting line if they perceived their health problem as severe. We aimed to investigate EAB use and patient characteristics associated with this use. Design: Comparative intervention study. Setting: OOH services in two major Danish healthcare regions. Intervention: Giving callers the option to bypass the telephone waiting line by introducing an EAB. Participants: OOH service callers contacting during end of October to mid-December 2017. Main outcome measures: Proportions of EAB use, waiting time and background information on participants in two settings differing on organisation structure, waiting time and triage personnel. Results: In total, 97,791 out of 158,784 callers (61.6%) chose to participate. The EAB was used 2905 times out of 97,791 (2.97%, 95%CI 2.86; 3.08). Patient characteristics associated with increased EAB use were male gender, higher age, low education, being retired, and increasing announced estimated waiting time. In one region, immigrants used the EAB more often than native Danish callers. Conclusion: Only about 3% of all callers chose to bypass the waiting line in the OOH service when given the option. This study suggests that the EAB could serve as a new and simple tool to reduce the waiting time for severely ill patients in an OOH service telephone triage setting. Key Points Acute out-of-hours healthcare is challenged by overcrowding and increasing demand for services. This study shows that only approximately 3% of callers chose to bypass the telephone waiting queue when given the opportunity through an emergency access button. An emergency access button may serve as a new tool to help reduce the triage waiting time for severely ill patients in out-of-hours medical facilities.

BackgroundOut-of-hours (OOH) health care for acute medical problems is often challenged by long waiting time for callers in need of advice and triage. Allowing patients to bypass the OOH telephone waiting line may increase patient satisfaction and provide them with a feeling of safety. We aimed to develop an “emergency access button” enabling patients to bypass the normal telephone waiting line in out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) if they perceive their condition to be critical and to evaluate the effect of introducing the button in terms of patient satisfaction and their feeling of safety.MethodsAll patients calling the OOH-PC in two different Danish health care regions during three months will be included in this randomized controlled trial. Data will be collected through two questionnaires developed for this study: a pop-up questionnaire on the relevance of bypassing the normal waiting line to be completed by triage professionals after patient contact and a paper/electronic questionnaire on perceived safety and satisfaction with the emergency access button to be completed by the callers. These questionnaires were developed and validated using external and internal expert feedback, focus group interviews and a two-week field test. The study will be conducted over three months with an estimated user-rate of the emergency access button of 3%.DiscussionWe have developed an emergency access button and we now want to investigate whether this new option will influence upon the level of satisfaction and the feeling of safety in the calling patients. Additionally, the study will reveal the assessed relevance of the decision to bypass the line by triage professionals.Trial registrationRegistered as NCT02572115 at Clinicaltrials.gov on October 5th 2015.

Objectives: Out-of-hours (OOH) services provide access to healthcare outside normal office hours, but the waiting time can sometimes be long. All callers must wait in the telephone queue, even if the health problem is urgent or life-threatening. We tested an emergency access button (EAB), which allowed callers with perceived severe health problems to bypass the queue. We aimed to investigate the severity of the health problems and the relevance of EAB use (assessed by triage professionals). Additionally, we aimed to calculate the number of suspected acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) and ambulance dispatches. Design: Descriptive study of a randomized intervention. Setting: OOH services in two major Danish healthcare regions. Subjects: 217,510 callers participated; 146,355 were randomized to intervention, and 6554 of 6631 (98.8%) questionnaires were completed by OOH triage professionals. Intervention: An EAB allowing randomly selected callers to bypass the telephone queue. Main outcome measures: Severity of contact and relevance of EAB use. Number of suspected AMIs and ambulance dispatches. Results: In both settings, contacts with EAB use concerned significantly more severe health problems than contacts without EAB use ( p < 0.001). Triage professionals rated EAB use as “not relevant” in 23% of cases. Significantly more EAB users (10.4%) than EAB non-users (3.3% with EAB option and 1.7% without EAB option, p < 0.001) had a suspected AMI. Conclusions: We found higher proportions of severe health problems, suspected AMIs, and ambulance dispatches among EAB users. Only 23% of EAB use was rated “not relevant”. This suggests that the EAB is used as intended. Key points Out-of-hours healthcare is challenged by increasing demand and long triage waiting times. An emergency access button may allow severely ill callers to jump the queue. Callers who bypassed the queue were more severely ill than callers who did not bypass the queue. Only 23% of bypassers presented “not relevant” health problems according to the triage staff. Trial registration: Identifier NCT02572115 registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 5 October 2015.

ObjectiveTo investigate if the option to bypass the telephone queue can increase satisfaction and feeling of safety in callers.DesignRandomised controlled parallel superiority trial. Data from questionnaire survey.SettingTwo out-of-hours (OOH) services in Denmark.Participants217 510 citizens who called the OOH services between 4 September 2017 and 30 November 2017.RandomisationTwo-faze study period: First half with randomisation of participants based on their date of birth; even date randomised to intervention, uneven date randomised to control group. Second half with all participants included in intervention group.InterventionProviding randomised callers (intervention group n=146 355) with the option to bypass the telephone waiting line through an emergency access button (EAB), while the rest got the normal service (control group n=71 155). All EAB users were invited to a questionnaire survey as well as random participants who did not use the EAB (of whom approximately 50% did not have the EAB option).Main outcome measuresSatisfaction and feeling of safety in callers.Results2208 of 6704 (32.9%) invited callers answered the questionnaire (intervention group n=1415 (users n=621, non-users n=794); control group n=793). The OR for answering in the two categories with highest satisfaction when provided with the EAB option was 1.34 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.68) for satisfaction with the waiting time, 1.21 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.60) for overall satisfaction and 1.46 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.89) for feeling of safety. Approximately 72% (441/621) of EAB users reported that the EAB option increased their feeling of safety with the OOH services ‘to a high degree’ compared with 25% (197/794) of callers who had the EAB option without using it.ConclusionsThe EAB can provide fast access to OOH telephone advice in case of severe illness. It favours citizens perceived in most need of urgent healthcare and significantly increases both feeling of safety and patient satisfaction.Trial registration detailsNCT02572115 (5 October 2015).