INTRODUCTION: The growth of Internet users enables epidemiological studies to be conducted electronically, representing a promising methodology for data collection. METHODS: Members of Ethics Committees, Clinical Researchers and Sponsors were interviewed using questionnaires sent over the Internet. Along with the questionnaire, participants received a message explaining the survey and also the informed consent. Returning the questionnaire meant the consent of the participant was given. No incentive was offered; two reminders were sent. RESULTS: The response rate was 21% (124/599), 20% (58/290) and 45% (24/53) respectively for Ethics Committees, Researchers and Sponsors. The percentage of return before the two reminders was about 62%. Reasons for non-response: participant not found, refusal to participate, lack of experience in clinical research or in the therapeutic field. Characteristics of participants: 45% of Ethics Committee participants, 64% of Researchers and 63% of Sponsors were male; mean age (range), respectively: 47 (28-74), 53 (24-72) and 40 (29-65) years. Among Researchers and Sponsors, all respondents had at least a university degree and, in the Ethics Committees group, only two (1.7%) did not have one. Most of the questionnaires in all groups came from the Southeast Region of Brazil, probably reflecting the highest number of clinical trials and research professionals in this region. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential limitations of a survey done through the Internet, this study led to a response rate similar to what has been observed with other models, efficiency in obtaining responses (speed and quality), convenience for respondents and low cost.
INTRODUCTION: The growth of Internet users enables epidemiological studies to be conducted electronically, representing a promising methodology for data collection. METHODS: Members of Ethics Committees, Clinical Researchers and Sponsors were interviewed using questionnaires sent over the Internet. Along with the questionnaire, participants received a message explaining the survey and also the informed consent. Returning the questionnaire meant the consent of the participant was given. No incentive was offered; two reminders were sent. RESULTS: The response rate was 21% (124/599), 20% (58/290) and 45% (24/53) respectively for Ethics Committees, Researchers and Sponsors. The percentage of return before the two reminders was about 62%. Reasons for non-response: participant not found, refusal to participate, lack of experience in clinical research or in the therapeutic field. Characteristics of participants: 45% of Ethics Committee participants, 64% of Researchers and 63% of Sponsors were male; mean age (range), respectively: 47 (28-74), 53 (24-72) and 40 (29-65) years. Among Researchers and Sponsors, all respondents had at least a university degree and, in the Ethics Committees group, only two (1.7%) did not have one. Most of the questionnaires in all groups came from the Southeast Region of Brazil, probably reflecting the highest number of clinical trials and research professionals in this region. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential limitations of a survey done through the Internet, this study led to a response rate similar to what has been observed with other models, efficiency in obtaining responses (speed and quality), convenience for respondents and low cost.