The most important thing for me is frequency of interviews over depth.
The problems are here presented in the order of the frequency of interviews in which they have been raised.
Methodological development around frequency of interviews or triggers for reinterviews is needed, and the added benefit of having case linked patient views should be explored.
These were health status, work motivation (intrinsic or economic reasons; an interviewer received € 30,- per completed interview), frequency of interviewing (number of days per month), and whether the interviewers felt uncomfortable with the content of CQ Index.
However, interviewer sex, age, education, socioeconomic status, work experience, how long and the frequency of interviewing, other jobs, health status and knowledge of elderly care did not explain this variation, and thus these characteristics are not a major source of interviewer bias.
However, the frequency of such interviews varies, with five OECD requiring an interview on a monthly basis or less (Czech Republic, France, Korea, Slovak Republic and the UK).
Throughout the paper, I refer to the quarterly survey to classify the frequency of the interviews (t and t+3) and not the frequency of the survey itself, which is monthly in both cases.
The statistical techniques that will be used (described below) can deal with missing data, as long as there are at least three data collection points for a given outcome measure, so that the frequency of the interviews maximises the number of people whose data can be analysed.
The frequencies of the number of interviews per individual are 130,137,116,93, and 180, for number of interviews: 1,2,3,4, and 5, respectively.
