PURPOSE: The advent of Web-based survey tools has provided the investigator with an alternative to paper-based survey methods that in many instances may be less expensive to implement than traditional paper-based surveys. Newer technology, however, does not diminish the importance of obtaining an adequate response rate. METHODS: We analyzed response rate data obtained from a survey implemented across 3 practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in which the survey was first implemented electronically with 5 rounds of electronic solicitation for an Internet-based questionnaire and then by 2 rounds of a paper-based version mailed only to nonresponders. RESULTS: Overall, 24% of the total survey responses received were in the paper mode despite intense promotion of the survey in the electronic phase. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest there is still an important role for the use of paper-based methods in PBRN survey research. Both hard copy and electronic survey collection methods may be required to enhance clinician response rates in PBRNs.
PURPOSE: The advent of Web-based survey tools has provided the investigator with an alternative to paper-based survey methods that in many instances may be less expensive to implement than traditional paper-based surveys. Newer technology, however, does not diminish the importance of obtaining an adequate response rate. METHODS: We analyzed response rate data obtained from a survey implemented across 3 practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in which the survey was first implemented electronically with 5 rounds of electronic solicitation for an Internet-based questionnaire and then by 2 rounds of a paper-based version mailed only to nonresponders. RESULTS: Overall, 24% of the total survey responses received were in the paper mode despite intense promotion of the survey in the electronic phase. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest there is still an important role for the use of paper-based methods in PBRN survey research. Both hard copy and electronic survey collection methods may be required to enhance clinician response rates in PBRNs.
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
Authors: Hector P Rodriguez; Ted von Glahn; William H Rogers; Hong Chang; Gary Fanjiang; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.983
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: Ellen Funkhouser; Kavya Vellala; Camille Baltuck; Rita Cacciato; Emily Durand; Deborah McEdward; Ellen Sowell; Sarah E Theisen; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2016-01-10 Impact factor: 2.651
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: Kirsten Wentlandt; Monika K Krzyzanowska; Nadia Swami; Gary Rodin; Lisa W Le; Lillian Sung; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kristen A Matteson; Britta L Anderson; Stephanie B Pinto; Vrishali Lopes; Jay Schulkin; Melissa A Clark Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2010-12-29 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Christina M Getrich; Andrew L Sussman; Kimberly Campbell-Voytal; Janice Y Tsoh; Robert L Williams; Anthony E Brown; Michael B Potter; William Spears; Nancy Weller; John Pascoe; Kendra Schwartz; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Robert R Leverence; Robert L Williams; Wilson Pace; Bennett Parnes; Yvonne Fry-Johnson; Dorothy R Pathak; Betty Skipper; Elvan Daniels; Philip Kroth Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Nicole Larson; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer; Eileen M Harwood; Marla E Eisenberg; Melanie M Wall; Peter J Hannan Journal: Int J Child Health Hum Dev Date: 2011
Authors: Ellen Funkhouser; Jeffrey L Fellows; Valeria V Gordan; D Brad Rindal; Patrick J Foy; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 1.821