Literature DB >> 17489911

Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians.

Timothy J Beebe1, G Richard Locke, Sunni A Barnes, Michael E Davern, Kari J Anderson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of two different mixed-mode (mail and web survey) combinations on response rates, response times, and nonresponse bias in a sample of primary care and specialty internal medicine physicians. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
SETTING: Primary data were collected from 500 physicians with an appointment in the Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine (DOM) between February and March 2005. STUDY
DESIGN: Physicians were randomly assigned to receive either an initial mailed survey evaluating the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) with a web survey follow-up to nonrespondents or its converse-an initial web survey followed by a mailed survey to nonrespondents. Response rates for each condition were calculated using standard formula. Response times were determined as well. Nonresponse bias was measured by comparing selected characteristics of survey respondents to similar characteristics in the full sample frame. In addition, the distributions of results on key outcome variables were compared overall and by data collection condition and phase. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Overall response rates were somewhat higher in the mail/web condition (70.5 percent) than in the web/mail condition (62.9 percent); differences were more pronounced before the mode switch prior to the mailing to nonrespondents. Median response time was 2 days faster in the web/mail condition than in the mail/web (median=5 and 7 days, respectively) but there was evidence of under-representation of specialist physicians and those who used the EMR a half a day or less each day in the web/mail condition before introduction of the mailed component. This did not translate into significant inconsistencies or differences in the distributions of key outcome variables, however.
CONCLUSIONS: A methodology that uses an initial mailing of a self-administered form followed by a web survey to nonrespondents provides slightly higher response rates and a more representative sample than one that starts with web and ends with a mailed survey. However, if the length of the data collection period is limited and rapid response is important, perhaps the web survey followed by a mailed questionnaire is to be preferred. Key outcome variables appear to be unaffected by the data collection method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17489911      PMCID: PMC1955260          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00652.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  10 in total

Review 1.  Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature.

Authors:  S E Kellerman; J Herold
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires.

Authors:  S M Cummings; L A Savitz; T R Konrad
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Methods for the design and administration of web-based surveys.

Authors:  T K Schleyer; J L Forrest
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians.

Authors:  Shawn R McMahon; Martha Iwamoto; Mehran S Massoudi; Hussain R Yusuf; John M Stevenson; Felicita David; Susan Y Chu; Larry K Pickering
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative?

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jon Emery; Simon De Lusignan; Stephen Sutton
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.267

6.  Physician response rates to mail and personal interview surveys.

Authors:  H Shosteck; W R Fairweather
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  1979

7.  Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians.

Authors:  William L Cull; Karen G O'Connor; Sanford Sharp; Suk-fong S Tang
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Electronic mail was not better than postal mail for surveying residents and faculty.

Authors:  Elie A Akl; Nancy Maroun; Robert A Klocke; Victor Montori; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Procedures that assess inconsistency in meta-analyses can assess the likelihood of response bias in multiwave surveys.

Authors:  Victor M Montori; Teresa W Leung; Stephen D Walter; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.

Authors:  D A Asch; M K Jedrziewski; N A Christakis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.437

  10 in total
  41 in total

1.  Combining web-based and mail surveys improves response rates: a PBRN study from PRIME Net.

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

2.  Email communication at the medical primary-secondary care interface: a qualitative exploration.

Authors:  Rod Sampson; Rosaline Barbour; Philip Wilson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Does Sequence Matter in Multi-Mode Surveys: Results from an Experiment.

Authors:  James Wagner; Jennifer Arrieta; Heidi Guyer; Mary Beth Ofstedal
Journal:  Field methods       Date:  2014-05-01

4.  How to assess a survey in surgery.

Authors:  Achilleas Thoma; Sylvie D Cornacchi; Forough Farrokhyar; Mohit Bhandari; Charlie H Goldsmith
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  International health policy survey in 11 countries: assessment of non-response bias in the Norwegian sample.

Authors:  Oyvind A Bjertnaes; Hilde H Iversen; Geir Bukholm
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 6.  How to assess a survey report: a guide for readers and peer reviewers.

Authors:  Karen E A Burns; Michelle E Kho
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Combining Internet-Based and Postal Survey Methods in a Survey among Gynecologists: Results of a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Sinja Alexandra Ernst; Tilman Brand; Stefan K Lhachimi; Hajo Zeeb
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Evaluating survey quality in health services research: a decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias.

Authors:  Jonathon R B Halbesleben; Marilyn V Whitman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Provider management of and satisfaction with laboratory testing in the nursing home setting: results of a national internet-based survey.

Authors:  Brian H Shirts; Subashan Perera; Joseph T Hanlon; Yazan F Roumani; Stephanie A Studenski; David A Nace; Michael J Becich; Steven M Handler
Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 4.669

10.  Measuring the patient experience in primary care: Comparing e-mail and waiting room survey delivery in a family health team.

Authors:  Morgan Slater; Tara Kiran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.275

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.