Campbell Aitken1, Robert Power, Robyn Dwyer. 1. Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Research, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. aitken@burnet.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on the response rate achieved in a survey of medical practitioners and discuss the reasons for it. METHOD: An on-line (internet-based) survey of all 609 registered pharmacotherapy prescribers in Victoria and Queensland; invitations to participate were sent by mail in late April 2007, and one reminder letter in late May 2007. RESULTS: Six hundred and nine invitation letters were mailed, nine were returned to sender, and 52 questionnaires completed, making the overall response rate 52/600 = 8.7%. The response rate in Queensland was 13.2% (16/121), and in Victoria 7.5% (36/479). CONCLUSIONS: Despite utilising sound techniques, our response rate was much lower than those achieved in recent Australian paper-based surveys of medical practitioners. It is possible that the issue being addressed (injecting-related injuries and diseases) was not of high priority for many invitees, leading to reduced response. IMPLICATIONS: On-line surveys are not yet an effective method of collecting data from Australian medical practitioners; researchers should continue to use paper questionnaires for maximum response.
OBJECTIVE: To report on the response rate achieved in a survey of medical practitioners and discuss the reasons for it. METHOD: An on-line (internet-based) survey of all 609 registered pharmacotherapy prescribers in Victoria and Queensland; invitations to participate were sent by mail in late April 2007, and one reminder letter in late May 2007. RESULTS: Six hundred and nine invitation letters were mailed, nine were returned to sender, and 52 questionnaires completed, making the overall response rate 52/600 = 8.7%. The response rate in Queensland was 13.2% (16/121), and in Victoria 7.5% (36/479). CONCLUSIONS: Despite utilising sound techniques, our response rate was much lower than those achieved in recent Australian paper-based surveys of medical practitioners. It is possible that the issue being addressed (injecting-related injuries and diseases) was not of high priority for many invitees, leading to reduced response. IMPLICATIONS: On-line surveys are not yet an effective method of collecting data from Australian medical practitioners; researchers should continue to use paper questionnaires for maximum response.
Authors: Sheena Elizabeth Geoghegan; Eric Clarke; Dara Byrne; Dermot Power; Daragh Moneley; Judith Strawbridge; David James Williams Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: S Feiten; J Dünnebacke; V Friesenhahn; J Heymanns; H Köppler; R Meister; J Thomalla; C van Roye; D Wey; R Weide Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.915
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
Authors: Catherine M Joyce; Anthony Scott; Sung-Hee Jeon; John Humphreys; Guyonne Kalb; Julia Witt; Anne Leahy Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 2.655