OBJECTIVE: To increase the overall 2007 response rate of the National Physician Survey (NPS) from the survey's 2004 rate of response with the implementation of various methodologic strategies. DESIGN: Physicians were stratified to receive either a long version (12 pages) or a short version (6 pages) of the survey (38% and 62%, respectively). Mixed modes of contact were used-58% were contacted by e-mail and 42% by regular mail-with multiple modes of contact attempted for nonrespondents. The self-administered, confidential surveys were distributed in either English or French. Medical residents and students received e-mail surveys only and were offered a substantial monetary lottery incentive for completing their surveys. A professional communications firm assisted in marketing the survey and delivered advance notification of its impending distribution. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 62 441 practising physicians, 2627 second-year medical residents, and 9162 medical students in Canada. RESULTS: Of the practising physicians group, 60 811 participants were eligible and 19 239 replied, for an overall 2007 study response rate of 31.64% (compared with 35.85% in 2004). No difference in rate of response was found between the longer and shorter versions of the survey. If contacted by regular mail, the response rate was 34.1%; the e-mail group had a response rate of 29.9%. Medical student and resident response rates were 30.8% and 27.9%, respectively (compared with 31.2% and 35.6% in 2004). CONCLUSION: Despite shortening the questionnaires, contacting more physicians by e-mail, and enhancing marketing and follow-up, the 2007 NPS response rate for practising physicians did not surpass the 2004 NPS response rate. Offering a monetary lottery incentive to medical residents and students was also unsuccessful in increasing their response rates. The role of surveys in gathering information from physicians and physicians-in-training remains problematic. Researchers need to investigate alternative strategies for achieving higher rates of response.
OBJECTIVE: To increase the overall 2007 response rate of the National Physician Survey (NPS) from the survey's 2004 rate of response with the implementation of various methodologic strategies. DESIGN: Physicians were stratified to receive either a long version (12 pages) or a short version (6 pages) of the survey (38% and 62%, respectively). Mixed modes of contact were used-58% were contacted by e-mail and 42% by regular mail-with multiple modes of contact attempted for nonrespondents. The self-administered, confidential surveys were distributed in either English or French. Medical residents and students received e-mail surveys only and were offered a substantial monetary lottery incentive for completing their surveys. A professional communications firm assisted in marketing the survey and delivered advance notification of its impending distribution. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 62 441 practising physicians, 2627 second-year medical residents, and 9162 medical students in Canada. RESULTS: Of the practising physicians group, 60 811 participants were eligible and 19 239 replied, for an overall 2007 study response rate of 31.64% (compared with 35.85% in 2004). No difference in rate of response was found between the longer and shorter versions of the survey. If contacted by regular mail, the response rate was 34.1%; the e-mail group had a response rate of 29.9%. Medical student and resident response rates were 30.8% and 27.9%, respectively (compared with 31.2% and 35.6% in 2004). CONCLUSION: Despite shortening the questionnaires, contacting more physicians by e-mail, and enhancing marketing and follow-up, the 2007 NPS response rate for practising physicians did not surpass the 2004 NPS response rate. Offering a monetary lottery incentive to medical residents and students was also unsuccessful in increasing their response rates. The role of surveys in gathering information from physicians and physicians-in-training remains problematic. Researchers need to investigate alternative strategies for achieving higher rates of response.
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Rachel A Nakash; Jane L Hutton; Ellen C Jørstad-Stein; Simon Gates; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Salimah Z Shariff; Jessica M Sontrop; R Brian Haynes; Arthur V Iansavichus; K Ann McKibbon; Nancy L Wilczynski; Matthew A Weir; Mark R Speechley; Amardeep Thind; Amit X Garg Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Molly L Paras; Erica S Shenoy; Heather E Hsu; Rochelle P Walensky; David C Hooper Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: J Barinoff; A Traut; D Bauerschlag; J Bischoff; D Herr; K Lübbe; H-J Lück; N Maass; C Mundhenke; M Schmidt; K Schwedler; M Thill; J Steffen; S Loibl; G von Minckwitz Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Daniel L Willis; Thomas W Flaig; Donna E Hansel; Matthew I Milowsky; Robert L Grubb; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Elizabeth R Plimack; Theresa M Koppie; David J McConkey; Colin P Dinney; Vanessa A Hoffman; Michael J Droller; Edward Messing; Ashish M Kamat Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 3.498