112
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    3
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: An observational study

      research-article
      1 , , 1 , 1
      BMC Health Services Research
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Postal surveys are a frequently used method of data collection in health services research. Low response rates increase the potential for bias and threaten study validity. The objectives of this study were to estimate current response rates, to assess whether response rates are falling, to explore factors that might enhance response rates and to examine the potential for non-response bias in surveys mailed to healthcare professionals.

          Methods

          A random sample of postal or electronic surveys of healthcare workers (1996-2005) was identified from Medline, Embase or Psycinfo databases or Biomed Central. Outcome measures were survey response rate and non response analysis. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression examined the relationship between response rate and publication type, healthcare profession, country and number of survey participants, questionnaire length and use of reminders.

          Results

          The analysis included 350 studies. Average response rate in doctors was 57.5% (95%CI: 55.2% to 59.8%) and significantly lower than the estimate for the prior 10 year period. Response rates were higher when reminders were sent (adjusted OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.1-1.6) but only half the studies did this. Response rates were also higher in studies with fewer than 1000 participants and in countries other than US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They were not significantly affected by publication type or healthcare profession (p > 0.05). Only 17% of studies attempted assessment of possible non-response bias.

          Conclusion

          Response rates to postal surveys of healthcare professionals are low and probably declining, almost certainly leading to unknown levels of bias. To improve the informativeness of postal survey findings, researchers should routinely consider the use of reminders and assess potential for non-response bias.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature.

          Physician-specific surveys are a frequently used tool in health services research, but attempts at ensuring adequate response rates are rarely reported. We reviewed literature of survey methodology specific to physician surveys and report those found to be most effective. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and PSYCHInfo from 1967 through February 1999. We included all English-language studies that randomized physician survey respondents to an experimental or control group. The authors independently extracted data from 24 studies examining survey methodology of physician-specific surveys. We included Mantel-Haenszel chi-squares comparing treatment groups, if present. If not, these were calculated from study data. Pre-notification of survey recipients, personalizing the survey mailout package, and nonmonetary incentives were not associated with increased response rates. Monetary incentives, the use of stamps on both outgoing and return envelopes, and short questionnaires did increase response rates. Few differences were reported in response rates of phone surveys compared with mail surveys and between the demographics and practice characteristics of early survey respondents and late respondents. We report some simple approaches that may significantly increase response rates of mail surveys. Surprisingly, the response rates of mail surveys of physicians compared favorably with those from telephone and personal interview surveys. Nonresponse bias may be of less concern in physician surveys than in surveys of the general public. Future research steps include specifically testing the more compelling results to allow for better control of confounders.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires.

            To examine response rate information from mailed physician questionnaires reported in published articles. Citations for articles published between 1985 and 1995 were obtained using a key word search of the Medline, PsychLit, and Sociofile databases. A 5 percent random sample of relevant citations was selected from each year. Citations found to be other than physician surveys were discarded and replaced with the next randomly assigned article. Selected articles were abstracted using a standardized variable list. The average response rate for mailed physician questionnaires was 61 percent. The average response rate for large sample surveys (> 1,000 observations) was 52 percent. In addition, only 44 percent of the abstracted articles reported a discussion of response bias, and only 54 percent reported any type of follow-up. (1) Response rates have remained somewhat constant over time, and (2) researchers need to document the efforts used to increase response rates to mailed physician questionnaires.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sample size calculator for cluster randomized trials.

              Cluster randomized trials, where individuals are randomized in groups are increasingly being used in healthcare evaluation. The adoption of a clustered design has implications for design, conduct and analysis of studies. In particular, standard sample sizes have to be inflated for cluster designs, as outcomes for individuals within clusters may be correlated; inflation can be achieved either by increasing the cluster size or by increasing the number of clusters in the study. A sample size calculator is presented for calculating appropriate sample sizes for cluster trials, whilst allowing the implications of both methods of inflation to be considered.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central
                1472-6963
                2009
                14 September 2009
                : 9
                : 160
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AA, UK
                Article
                1472-6963-9-160
                10.1186/1472-6963-9-160
                2758861
                19751504
                9a797eee-1328-4b50-a8e8-f97fc3848807
                Copyright © 2009 Cook et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 April 2009
                : 14 September 2009
                Categories
                Research Article

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content271

                Cited by146

                Most referenced authors197