Which Outreach Modes Improve Response Rates to Physician Surveys? Lessons from an Experiment at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1177/01632787221143151
Brendan J Barnhart, Siddharta G Reddy, Jonathan L Vandergrift
{"title":"Which Outreach Modes Improve Response Rates to Physician Surveys? Lessons from an Experiment at the American Board of Internal Medicine.","authors":"Brendan J Barnhart,&nbsp;Siddharta G Reddy,&nbsp;Jonathan L Vandergrift","doi":"10.1177/01632787221143151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Physicians are a notoriously difficult group to survey due to a low propensity to respond. We investigate the relative effectiveness of reminder phone calls, pre-notification postcards, mailed paper surveys, and $1 upfront incentives for boosting survey response rate by embedding a randomized experiment into a mixed-mode operational survey at the American Board of Internal Medicine in 2019. Expected response rates and average marginal effects for each follow-up method were computed from a logistic regression model. The control group which only received email reminders achieved a response rate of 18.2%, 95% CI: (15.0%, 21.9%). The intervention group which included reminder emails, pre-notification postcards, and mailed paper surveys with $1 incentives achieved a response rate of 43.1%, 95% CI: (38.8%, 47.5%). Mailed paper surveys yielded the largest percentage point increase in response rate of 11.2%, 95% CI: (7.3%, 15.2%), while $1 upfront monetary incentives and phone call reminders increased survey response rate by 5.9%, 95% CI: (1.6%, 10.2%) and 5.5%, 95% CI: (2.6%, 8.3%) respectively. Pre-notification postcards are associated with a 2.0%, 95% CI: (-1.7%, 5.6%) increase in survey response rate. Cost-effectiveness for each method is discussed. This research supports optimal decision making for researchers when planning a physician survey study.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787221143151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Physicians are a notoriously difficult group to survey due to a low propensity to respond. We investigate the relative effectiveness of reminder phone calls, pre-notification postcards, mailed paper surveys, and $1 upfront incentives for boosting survey response rate by embedding a randomized experiment into a mixed-mode operational survey at the American Board of Internal Medicine in 2019. Expected response rates and average marginal effects for each follow-up method were computed from a logistic regression model. The control group which only received email reminders achieved a response rate of 18.2%, 95% CI: (15.0%, 21.9%). The intervention group which included reminder emails, pre-notification postcards, and mailed paper surveys with $1 incentives achieved a response rate of 43.1%, 95% CI: (38.8%, 47.5%). Mailed paper surveys yielded the largest percentage point increase in response rate of 11.2%, 95% CI: (7.3%, 15.2%), while $1 upfront monetary incentives and phone call reminders increased survey response rate by 5.9%, 95% CI: (1.6%, 10.2%) and 5.5%, 95% CI: (2.6%, 8.3%) respectively. Pre-notification postcards are associated with a 2.0%, 95% CI: (-1.7%, 5.6%) increase in survey response rate. Cost-effectiveness for each method is discussed. This research supports optimal decision making for researchers when planning a physician survey study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哪些外展模式能提高医生调查的回复率?美国内科医学委员会的一项实验的教训。
众所周知,医生是一个很难调查的群体,因为他们的反应倾向很低。2019年,我们在美国内科医学委员会(American Board of Internal Medicine)的一项混合模式操作调查中嵌入了一项随机实验,研究了提醒电话、预先通知明信片、邮寄纸质调查和1美元预付奖励等提高调查回复率的相对有效性。通过逻辑回归模型计算每种随访方法的预期反应率和平均边际效应。仅接收电子邮件提醒的对照组的回复率为18.2%,95% CI:(15.0%, 21.9%)。干预组包括提醒电子邮件、预先通知明信片和带有1美元奖励的邮寄问卷调查,回复率为43.1%,95% CI:(38.8%, 47.5%)。邮寄纸质调查的回复率提高了11.2% (95% CI: 7.3%, 15.2%),而1美元的预付金钱奖励和电话提醒分别使调查回复率提高了5.9% (95% CI: 1.6%, 10.2%)和5.5% (95% CI: 2.6%, 8.3%)。预先通知明信片与2.0%,95%置信区间(-1.7%,5.6%)的调查回复率增加有关。讨论了每种方法的成本效益。本研究支持研究人员在计划医师调查研究时做出最佳决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
The Use of Contribution Analysis in Evaluating Health Interventions: A Scoping Review. Impact of Multi-point Nursing Strategies Under a Clinical Problem-Solving Framework on Adverse Events Associated With Thyroid Nodule Resection. Real Patient Participation in Workplace-Based Assessment of Health Professional Trainees: A Scoping Review. The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Self-Perceived Barriers for Physical Activity Questionnaire. Factors Associated With Agreement Between Parent and Childhood Cancer Survivor Reports on Child's Health Related Quality of Life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1