Jane S Hocking1, Megan S C Lim, Tim Read, Margaret Hellard. 1. Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Research, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health and the School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. jhocking@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare general practitioner (GP) response to a telephone interview with response to a postal survey with three reminders in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: GPs were randomly assigned to either a telephone interview or a postal survey. GPs in the telephone group were mailed a letter of invitation and asked to undertake a telephone interview. GPs in the postal group were mailed a letter of invitation and questionnaire. Non-responders were sent up to three reminders, the final by registered post. Response rates were calculated for each group. RESULTS:416 GPs were randomized to the telephone interview and 451 to the postal survey. Eighty-six in the telephone group and 30 in the postal were ineligible. One hundred thirty-four GPs completed the telephone interview with a response rate of 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.3%, 46.1%). Two hundred fifty-two GPs completed the postal survey with aresponse rate of 59.9% (95%CI: 55.0%, 64.6%). The difference in response was 19.3% (95%CI: 12.2%, 26.3%). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that postal surveys with three reminders can have superior response rates compared with a telephone interview.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare general practitioner (GP) response to a telephone interview with response to a postal survey with three reminders in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: GPs were randomly assigned to either a telephone interview or a postal survey. GPs in the telephone group were mailed a letter of invitation and asked to undertake a telephone interview. GPs in the postal group were mailed a letter of invitation and questionnaire. Non-responders were sent up to three reminders, the final by registered post. Response rates were calculated for each group. RESULTS: 416 GPs were randomized to the telephone interview and 451 to the postal survey. Eighty-six in the telephone group and 30 in the postal were ineligible. One hundred thirty-four GPs completed the telephone interview with a response rate of 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.3%, 46.1%). Two hundred fifty-two GPs completed the postal survey with a response rate of 59.9% (95%CI: 55.0%, 64.6%). The difference in response was 19.3% (95%CI: 12.2%, 26.3%). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that postal surveys with three reminders can have superior response rates compared with a telephone interview.
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
Authors: Gillian J Leichtling; Jessica M Irvine; Christi Hildebran; Deborah J Cohen; Sara E Hallvik; Richard A Deyo Journal: Pain Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Y Martins; R I Lederman; C L Lowenstein; S Joffe; B A Neville; B T Hastings; G A Abel Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Elisa J F Houwink; Arno M M Muijtjens; Sarah R van Teeffelen; Lidewij Henneman; Jan Joost Rethans; Florijn Jacobi; Liesbeth van der Jagt; Irina Stirbu; Scheltus J van Luijk; Connie T R M Stumpel; Hanne E Meijers-Heijboer; Cees van der Vleuten; Martina C Cornel; Geert Jan Dinant Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisa J F Houwink; Sarah R van Teeffelen; Arno M M Muijtjens; Lidewij Henneman; Florijn Jacobi; Scheltus J van Luijk; Geert Jan Dinant; Cees van der Vleuten; Martina C Cornel Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Elisa J F Houwink; Arno M M Muijtjens; Sarah R van Teeffelen; Lidewij Henneman; Jan Joost Rethans; Liesbeth E J van der Jagt; Scheltus J van Luijk; Geert Jan Dinant; Cees van der Vleuten; Martina C Cornel Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 8.822