Literature DB >> 20397864

Reaching emergency medical services providers: is one survey mode better than another?

Patricia Schmuhl1, Heather Van Duker, Kristin Lauria Gurley, Angie Webster, Lenora M Olson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine which mode of completing a survey yields the highest response rate among emergency medical services (EMS) providers, examine rural and urban differences, and determine the completeness of questions by mode of response.
METHODS: A random sample of EMS providers was mailed one of the following: 1) a paper survey, with instructions to return it via the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope; 2) a letter, with instructions to complete the survey at the provided URL (Web address); or 3) a paper survey with a self-addressed, stamped envelope and a URL, with the option of choosing the mode of response. We compared response rates based on the three different modes. We conducted analysis of the number of skipped multiple-choice and open-ended questions by mode and content analysis of the open-ended questions.
RESULTS: The paper-only option resulted in the highest response rate (40.4%, p = 0.003) compared with the response rates from Web-only and choice of mode. Overall, rural EMS providers responded at a higher rate than urban EMS providers (40.3% vs. 31.6%, respectively [p = 0.0002]). Web respondents were more likely to complete all the open-ended questions (p = 0.003). Almost a fourth (22.8%) of the paper respondents skipped multiple-choice questions. There was a pattern of more complete responses for open-ended questions among the Web-based participants, but this was not significant (p = 0.17).
CONCLUSION: EMS providers seem to prefer a more traditional mode (paper) when responding to a survey. Rural providers are more likely to respond. Mode of response influences the number of skipped questions but does not impact the quality of open-ended answers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20397864     DOI: 10.3109/10903121003760184

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   3.077


  4 in total

1.  Understanding of sepsis among emergency medical services: a survey study.

Authors:  Christopher W Seymour; David Carlbom; Ruth A Engelberg; Jonathan Larsen; Eileen M Bulger; Michael K Copass; Thomas D Rea
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 1.484

2.  The COVID-19 vaccine concerns scale: Development and validation of a new measure.

Authors:  Megan E Gregory; Sarah R MacEwan; Jonathan R Powell; Jaclyn Volney; Jordan D Kurth; Eben Kenah; Ashish R Panchal; Ann Scheck McAlearney
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 4.526

3.  Use of prehospital ultrasound in North America: a survey of emergency medical services medical directors.

Authors:  John Taylor; Kyle McLaughlin; Andrew McRae; Eddy Lang; Andrew Anton
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2014-03-01

4.  An Opportunity to Understand Concerns about COVID-19 Vaccination: Perspectives from EMS Professionals.

Authors:  Sarah R MacEwan; Alice A Gaughan; Megan E Gregory; Laura J Rush; Jonathan R Powell; Jordan D Kurth; Ashish R Panchal; Ann Scheck McAlearney
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-02
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.