Literature DB >> 3396802

Response bias in a study of general practice.

J Cockburn1, E Campbell, J J Gordon, R W Sanson-Fisher.   

Abstract

Response bias in quality of care research is an important, but largely neglected concern. Differences between health care professionals who consent to participate in research and those who do not may distort the conclusions and prevent the results being generalizable. This is particularly likely when response rates are low, as they often are in studies evaluating primary health care. The present study outlines a method for examining this important area. Fifty-six general practitioners who consented to participate in an observational study of general practice were compared with 52 doctors who declined to participate in the research. Comparisons were made of general characteristics including age, sex, practice size and postgraduate qualifications, as well as attitudes toward their role. This last analysis was deemed particularly important, as the attitudes expressed may have affected the behaviour of the doctor in the consultation, and therefore outcomes such as accurate diagnosis, compliance and satisfaction. Such outcomes are often the object of study in quality of care research. The only significant difference to emerge in the present study was that non-consenters were more strongly in favour of a medical system based on free enterprise and fee for service (t83 = 2.3P less than 0.05). No systematic differences were found on other general characteristics or attitudes relating to patient care. Response bias using the stated variables was therefore considered to be minimal. The results are discussed in terms of strategies aimed at increasing response rates in quality of care research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3396802     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/5.1.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  13 in total

1.  Problems in recruiting community-based physicians for health services research.

Authors:  S Asch; S E Connor; E G Hamilton; S A Fox
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far?

Authors:  B R McAvoy; E F Kaner
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-21

3.  The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study.

Authors:  A Deehan; L Templeton; C Taylor; C Drummond; J Strang
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter?

Authors:  L Templeton; A Deehan; C Taylor; C Drummond; J Strang
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Using alternatives to face-to-face consultations: a survey of prevalence and attitudes in general practice.

Authors:  Heather Brant; Helen Atherton; Sue Ziebland; Brian McKinstry; John L Campbell; Chris Salisbury
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Response rates in general practice studies.

Authors:  P McDonald
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  The general practitioner, the drug misuser, and the alcohol misuser: major differences in general practitioner activity, therapeutic commitment, and 'shared care' proposals.

Authors:  A Deehan; C Taylor; J Strang
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Effect of the remuneration system on the general practitioner's choice between surgery consultations and home visits.

Authors:  I S Kristiansen; K Holtedahl
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  The effects of gender on diagnosis of psychological disturbance.

Authors:  S Redman; G R Webb; D J Hennrikus; J J Gordon; R W Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  1991-10

10.  Domestic violence: knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice of selected UK primary healthcare clinicians.

Authors:  Jean Ramsay; Clare Rutterford; Alison Gregory; Danielle Dunne; Sandra Eldridge; Debbie Sharp; Gene Feder
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.