Literature DB >> 9624749

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

E F Kaner1, C A Haighton, B R McAvoy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Response rates by general practitioners (GPs) to postal surveys have consistently fallen, compromising the validity of this type of research. If postal survey work is to continue we need to understand GPs' reasons for not participating and respond appropriately. AIM: To investigate GPs' reasons for not responding to postal surveys.
METHOD: A qualitative study was carried out to determine GPs reasons for not participating in postal surveys, which were drawn from a telephone survey of 276 non-responders to a postal questionnaire survey. Practitioners' comments were recorded and reasons for their non-response quantified using content analysis.
RESULTS: Primary reasons for GPs not replying to the postal survey were that questionnaires had got lost in paperwork (34%), that GPs were too busy for the extra work involved (21%), and that questionnaires were routinely 'binned' (16%). Higher practice workloads, including increased administration, meant that participation in research had become a low priority. GPs provided some suggestions for researchers that would increase their chances of questionnaires being returned.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers need to be aware of the pressures of service general practice and to rationalize the amount of research material sent to GPs. GPs were most likely to respond to postal surveys that had a high interest factor, that involved localized research relevant to general practice, and that incorporated a personalized approach by researchers, including good-quality explanatory information.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9624749      PMCID: PMC1410021     

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


  9 in total

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

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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Improving the response rates in primary care research. Some methods used in a survey on stress in general practice since the new contract (1990).

Authors:  S Myerson
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.267

5.  Sustaining general practice.

Authors:  N D Olsen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-02

6.  Not another questionnaire!: eliciting the views of general practitioners.

Authors:  I MacPherson; A Bisset
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.267

7.  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

8.  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

9.  General practitioners' experience of research.

Authors:  J Ward
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 2.267

  9 in total
  45 in total

Review 1.  Questionnaires: the use and abuse of social survey methods in medical research.

Authors:  J Eaden; M K Mayberry; J F Mayberry
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 2.401

2.  'Bin bag' study: a survey of the research requests received by general practitioners and the primary health care team.

Authors:  M Moore; K Post; H Smith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Studying clinician-computer interaction in Web-based systems.

Authors:  R Schoenberg; C Safran; D Z Sands
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2000

4.  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

5.  Learning preferences and learning styles: a study of Wessex general practice registrars.

Authors:  J Lesmes-Anel; G Robinson; S Moody
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  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

Review 7.  Questionnaire surveys of dentists on radiology.

Authors:  A M Shelley; P Brunton; K Horner
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.419

8.  General practitioners and carers: a questionnaire survey of attitudes, awareness of issues, barriers and enablers to provision of services.

Authors:  Nan Greenwood; Ann Mackenzie; Ruth Habibi; Christine Atkins; Ray Jones
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 2.497

9.  Assessment of Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge and Understanding of the Risk of Blood Typing Interference with Daratumumab: A Survey of 12 European Countries.

Authors:  Mathieu Rosé; Intissar Bourahla; Alessandro Ghiddi; Assem Al-Akabawi; Edmond Chan; Massoud Toussi
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 3.845

10.  Quantitative sputum cell counts to monitor bronchitis: a qualitative study of physician and patient perspectives.

Authors:  Liesel D'silva; Helen Neighbour; Amiram Gafni; Katherine Radford; Freddy Hargreave; Parameswaran Nair
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.409

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.