107
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Global Overview of Response Rates in Patient and Health Care Professional Surveys in Surgery : A Systematic Review

      review-article

      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

          Objective:

          Identify key demographic factors and modes of follow-up in surgical survey response.

          Summary Background Data:

          Surveys are widely used in surgery to assess patient and procedural outcomes, but response rates vary widely which compromises study quality. Currently there is no consensus as to what the average response rate is and which factors are associated with higher response rates.

          Methods:

          The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) was systematically searched from Januray 1, 2007 until February 1, 2020 using the following strategy: ((( questionnaire) OR survey) AND “response rate”) AND ( surgery OR surgical). Original survey studies from surgical(-related) fields reporting on response rate were included. Through one-way analysis of variance we present mean response rate per survey mode over time, number of additional contacts, country of origin, and type of interviewee.

          Results:

          The average response is 70% over 811 studies in patients and 53% over 1746 doctor surveys. In-person surveys yield an average 76% response rate, followed by postal (65%) and online (46% web-based vs 51% email) surveys. Patients respond significantly more often than doctors to surveys by mail ( P < 0.001), email ( P = 0.003), web-based surveys ( P < 0.001) and mixed mode surveys ( P = 0.006). Additional contacts significantly improve response rate in email ( P = 0.26) and web-based ( P = 0.041) surveys in doctors. A wide variation in response rates was identified between countries.

          Conclusions:

          Every survey is unique, but the main commonality between studies is response rate. Response rates appear to be highly dependent on type of survey, follow-up, geography, and interviewee type.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

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

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

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

              Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)

              Analogous to checklists of recommendations such as the CONSORT statement (for randomized trials), or the QUORUM statement (for systematic reviews), which are designed to ensure the quality of reports in the medical literature, a checklist of recommendations for authors is being presented by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) in an effort to ensure complete descriptions of Web-based surveys. Papers on Web-based surveys reported according to the CHERRIES statement will give readers a better understanding of the sample (self-)selection and its possible differences from a “representative” sample. It is hoped that author adherence to the checklist will increase the usefulness of such reports.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Surg
                Ann Surg
                ANSU
                Annals of Surgery
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0003-4932
                1528-1140
                January 2022
                15 September 2020
                : 275
                : 1
                : e75-e81
                Affiliations
                []Department of Surgery, Isala Hospital, The Netherlands
                []Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
                Author notes
                Article
                ANNSURG-D-19-02049 00043
                10.1097/SLA.0000000000004078
                8683255
                32649458
                c87d5019-0f16-4c8b-8179-d63e373b73aa
                Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                History
                Categories
                Review Papers
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                ONLINE-ONLY

                email,postal,questionnaire,response rate,survey,telephone
                email, postal, questionnaire, response rate, survey, telephone

                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 content106

                Cited by96

                Most referenced authors913