John F Reinisch1, Daniel C Yu, Wai-Yee Li. 1. From the *Craniofacial and Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Beverly Hills, CA; †University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY; and ‡Division of Plastic Surgery, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Web-based surveys save time and money. As electronic questionnaires have increased in popularity, telephone and mailed surveys have declined. With any survey, a response rate of 75% or greater is critical for the validity of any study. We wanted to determine which survey method achieved the highest response among academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: All American Association of Plastic Surgeons members were surveyed regarding authorship issues. They were randomly assigned to receive the questionnaire through 1 of 4 methods: (A) emailed with a link to an online survey; (B) regular mail; (C) regular mail + $1 bill, and (D) regular mail + $5 bill. Two weeks after the initial mailing, the number of responses was collected, and nonresponders were contacted to remind them to participate. The study was closed after 10 weeks. Survey costs were calculated based on the actual cost of sending the initial survey, including stationary, printing, postage (groups B-D), labor, and cost of any financial incentives. Cost of reminders to nonresponders was calculated at $5 per reminder, giving a total survey cost. RESULTS:Of 662 surveys sent, 54 were returned because of incorrect address/email, retirement, or death. Four hundred seventeen of the remaining 608 surveys were returned and analyzed. The response rate was lowest in the online group and highest in those mailed with a monetary incentive. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the convenience and low initial cost of web-based surveys, this generated the lowest response. We obtained statistically significant response rates (79% and 84%) only by using postal mail with monetary incentives and reminders. The inclusion of a $1 bill represented the greatest value and cost-effective survey method, based on cost per response.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Web-based surveys save time and money. As electronic questionnaires have increased in popularity, telephone and mailed surveys have declined. With any survey, a response rate of 75% or greater is critical for the validity of any study. We wanted to determine which survey method achieved the highest response among academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: All American Association of Plastic Surgeons members were surveyed regarding authorship issues. They were randomly assigned to receive the questionnaire through 1 of 4 methods: (A) emailed with a link to an online survey; (B) regular mail; (C) regular mail + $1 bill, and (D) regular mail + $5 bill. Two weeks after the initial mailing, the number of responses was collected, and nonresponders were contacted to remind them to participate. The study was closed after 10 weeks. Survey costs were calculated based on the actual cost of sending the initial survey, including stationary, printing, postage (groups B-D), labor, and cost of any financial incentives. Cost of reminders to nonresponders was calculated at $5 per reminder, giving a total survey cost. RESULTS: Of 662 surveys sent, 54 were returned because of incorrect address/email, retirement, or death. Four hundred seventeen of the remaining 608 surveys were returned and analyzed. The response rate was lowest in the online group and highest in those mailed with a monetary incentive. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the convenience and low initial cost of web-based surveys, this generated the lowest response. We obtained statistically significant response rates (79% and 84%) only by using postal mail with monetary incentives and reminders. The inclusion of a $1 bill represented the greatest value and cost-effective survey method, based on cost per response.
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Lang Chen; Maria I Danila; Kenneth G Saag; Kathy L Parham; John J Cush Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: A P Regensburger; V Konrad; R Trollmann; I Y Eyüpoglu; H Huebner; J Zierk; T M K Völkl; F B Fahlbusch Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2019-03-02 Impact factor: 1.475
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: Vincent Maurice Meyer; Stan Benjamens; Mostafa El Moumni; Johan F M Lange; Robert A Pol Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 12.969