Literature DB >> 9101692

Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter?

L Templeton1, A Deehan, C Taylor, C Drummond, J Strang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary care has long been of interest to policy research. Recently, there is evidence to suggest that it is becoming more difficult to encourage GPs (general practitioners) to participate in surveys. As low response rates can introduce bias into survey results, it is important to study the effects of non-response. AIM: To assess the validity of a response rate of 44% obtained in a national postal study of GPs surveyed about their work with alcohol-misusing patients by assessing the extent of any non-response bias.
METHOD: A telephone survey of 148 GPs who had not responded to repeated mailings of a postal questionnaire was undertaken. In addition to personal and practice structure characteristics, the GPs were asked three questions taken from the original questionnaire about their work with alcohol-misusing patients.
RESULTS: Of the 148 GPs telephoned, 64 responded to the telephone questionnaire in full; all had previously failed to respond to the postal questionnaire. Younger GPs were more likely to respond to both the national postal and telephone surveys, but more so to the latter. Telephone responders were more likely to be GPs in a single-handed practice. The work of GPs with alcohol-misusing patients highlighted differences between the two response groups. Male telephone responders were found to be identifying a significantly higher average of alcohol misusers than male postal responders. Telephone responders were more likely to feel trained in treating alcohol misuse and to feel better supported to deal with this patient group.
CONCLUSION: Some significant differences were identified, indicating the presence of non-response bias. A low response rate need not affect the validity of the data collected, but it is still necessary to test for non-response effects and make corrections to the original data in order to maximize validity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9101692      PMCID: PMC1312913     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  5 in total

1.  Response bias in a study of general practice.

Authors:  J Cockburn; E Campbell; J J Gordon; R W Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 2.267

2.  Telephone surveys in public health research.

Authors:  A C Marcus; L A Crane
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Response rates in general practice studies.

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

4.  Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations.

Authors:  B Sibbald; J Addington-Hall; D Brenneman; P Freeling
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Professionals as responders: variations in and effects of response rates to questionnaires, 1961-77.

Authors:  A Cartwright
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1978-11-18
  5 in total
  52 in total

1.  Prescribers prefer people: The sources of information used by doctors for prescribing suggest that the medium is more important than the message.

Authors:  P McGettigan; J Golden; J Fryer; R Chan; J Feely
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  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

3.  Evaluation of the impact of two educational interventions on GP management of familial breast/ovarian cancer cases: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  E Watson; A Clements; P Yudkin; P Rose; C Bukach; J Mackay; A Lucassen; J Austoker
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  When questionnaire response rates do matter: a survey of general practitioners and their views of NHS changes.

Authors:  D Armstrong; M Ashworth
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Comparison of the risk of drowsiness and sedation between levocetirizine and desloratadine: a prescription-event monitoring study in England.

Authors:  Deborah Layton; Lynda Wilton; Andrew Boshier; Victoria Cornelius; Scott Harris; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  'So much post, so busy with practice--so, no time!': a telephone survey of general practitioners' reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys.

Authors:  E F Kaner; C A Haighton; B R McAvoy
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Pharmacovigilance study of alendronate in England.

Authors:  Pipasha N Biswas; Lynda V Wilton; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-04-23       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  The pharmacovigilance of pantoprazole: the results of postmarketing surveillance on 11 541 patients in England.

Authors:  Lynda V Wilton; Cheryl Key; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Effects of various methodologic strategies: survey response rates among Canadian physicians and physicians-in-training.

Authors:  Inese Grava-Gubins; Sarah Scott
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.275

10.  The validity of a questionnaire on medicines used in health care practice: comparison of a questionnaire and computerized medical record survey.

Authors:  Ahmad Al-Windi
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-07-04       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.