Patrick C Hardigan1, Ioana Popovici2, Manuel J Carvajal2. 1. Nova Southeastern University, College of Medicine, 3200 South University Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33328-2018, USA. Electronic address: patrick@nova.edu. 2. Nova Southeastern University, College of Pharmacy, Department of Sociobehavioral and Administrative Pharmacy, 3200 South University Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33328-2018, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a gap between increasing demands from pharmacy journals, publishers, and reviewers for high survey response rates and the actual responses often obtained in the field by survey researchers. Presumably demands have been set high because response rates, times, and costs affect the validity and reliability of survey results. OBJECTIVE: Explore the extent to which survey response rates, average response times, and economic costs are affected by conditions under which pharmacist workforce surveys are administered. METHODS: A random sample of 7200 U.S. practicing pharmacists was selected. The sample was stratified by delivery method, questionnaire length, item placement, and gender of respondent for a total of 300 observations within each subgroup. A job satisfaction survey was administered during March-April 2012. RESULTS: Delivery method was the only classification showing significant differences in response rates and average response times. The postal mail procedure accounted for the highest response rates of completed surveys, but the email method exhibited the quickest turnaround. A hybrid approach, consisting of a combination of postal and electronic means, showed the least favorable results. Postal mail was 2.9 times more cost effective than the email approach and 4.6 times more cost effective than the hybrid approach. CONCLUSION: Researchers seeking to increase practicing pharmacists' survey participation and reduce response time and related costs can benefit from the analytical procedures tested here.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is a gap between increasing demands from pharmacy journals, publishers, and reviewers for high survey response rates and the actual responses often obtained in the field by survey researchers. Presumably demands have been set high because response rates, times, and costs affect the validity and reliability of survey results. OBJECTIVE: Explore the extent to which survey response rates, average response times, and economic costs are affected by conditions under which pharmacist workforce surveys are administered. METHODS: A random sample of 7200 U.S. practicing pharmacists was selected. The sample was stratified by delivery method, questionnaire length, item placement, and gender of respondent for a total of 300 observations within each subgroup. A job satisfaction survey was administered during March-April 2012. RESULTS: Delivery method was the only classification showing significant differences in response rates and average response times. The postal mail procedure accounted for the highest response rates of completed surveys, but the email method exhibited the quickest turnaround. A hybrid approach, consisting of a combination of postal and electronic means, showed the least favorable results. Postal mail was 2.9 times more cost effective than the email approach and 4.6 times more cost effective than the hybrid approach. CONCLUSION: Researchers seeking to increase practicing pharmacists' survey participation and reduce response time and related costs can benefit from the analytical procedures tested here.
Authors: Stephanie C Shealy; Cathy L Worrall; Jennifer L Baker; Amy D Grant; Patricia H Fabel; C Matthew Walker; Bryan Ziegler; Whitney D Maxwell Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Kirk D Wyatt; Brian N Willaert; Christine M Lohse; Peter J Pallagi; James A Yiannias; Thomas R Hellmich Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Ricardo Castro; Nicolas Nin; Fernando Ríos; Leyla Alegría; Elisa Estenssoro; Gastón Murias; Gilberto Friedman; Manuel Jibaja; Gustavo Ospina-Tascon; Javier Hurtado; María Del Carmen Marín; Flavia R Machado; Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti; Arnaldo Dubin; Luciano Azevedo; Maurizio Cecconi; Jan Bakker; Glenn Hernandez Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Xiaochen Tai; Alanna M Smith; Allison J McGeer; Eve Dubé; Dorothy Linn Holness; Kevin Katz; Linda McGillis Hall; Shelly A McNeil; Jeff Powis; Brenda L Coleman Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Fernando Diaz Del Valle; Patricia B Koff; Sung-Joon Min; Jonathan K Zakrajsek; Linda Zittleman; Douglas H Fernald; Andrea Nederveld; Donald E Nease; Alexis R Hunter; Eric J Moody; Kay Miller Temple; Jenny L Niblock; Chrysanne Grund; Tamara K Oser; K Allen Greiner; R William Vandivier Journal: Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis Date: 2021-07-28