OBJECTIVE: To compare response rate, time to response, and data quality of electronic and postal surveys in the setting of postgraduate medical education. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial in a university-based internal medicine residency program. We randomized 119 residents and 83 faculty to an electronic versus a postal survey with up to two reminders and measuredresponse rate, time to response, and data quality. RESULTS: For residents, the e-survey resulted in a lower response rate than the postal survey (63.3% versus 79.7%; difference -16.3%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -32.3% to -0.4%%; P=.049), but a shorter mean response time, by 3.8 days (95% CI 0.2-7.4; P=.042). For faculty, the e-survey did not result in a significantly lower response rate than the postal survey (85.4% vs. 81.0%; difference 4.4%, 95% CI -11.7 to 20.5%; P=.591), but resulted in a shorter average response time, by 8.4 days (95% CI 4.4 to 12.4; P < 0.001). There were no differences in the quality of data or responses to the survey between the two methods. CONCLUSION: E-surveys were not superior to postal surveys in terms of response rate, but resulted in shorter time to response and equivalent data quality.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare response rate, time to response, and data quality of electronic and postal surveys in the setting of postgraduate medical education. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial in a university-based internal medicine residency program. We randomized 119 residents and 83 faculty to an electronic versus a postal survey with up to two reminders and measured response rate, time to response, and data quality. RESULTS: For residents, the e-survey resulted in a lower response rate than the postal survey (63.3% versus 79.7%; difference -16.3%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -32.3% to -0.4%%; P=.049), but a shorter mean response time, by 3.8 days (95% CI 0.2-7.4; P=.042). For faculty, the e-survey did not result in a significantly lower response rate than the postal survey (85.4% vs. 81.0%; difference 4.4%, 95% CI -11.7 to 20.5%; P=.591), but resulted in a shorter average response time, by 8.4 days (95% CI 4.4 to 12.4; P < 0.001). There were no differences in the quality of data or responses to the survey between the two methods. CONCLUSION: E-surveys were not superior to postal surveys in terms of response rate, but resulted in shorter time to response and equivalent data quality.
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; G Richard Locke; Sunni A Barnes; Michael E Davern; Kari J Anderson Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Philip J Kroth; Laurie McPherson; Robert Leverence; Wilson Pace; Elvan Daniels; Robert L Rhyne; Robert L Williams Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: James Wagner; Heather M Schroeder; Andrew Piskorowski; Robert J Ursano; Murray B Stein; Steven G Heeringa; Lisa J Colpe Journal: Soc Sci Comput Rev Date: 2016-06-19 Impact factor: 4.578
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Robert M Jacobson; Sarah M Jenkins; Kandace A Lackore; Lila J Finney Rutten Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 3.402