2014-2022 年 11 项全国牙科实践研究网络调查的参与率。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-06-06 DOI:10.1177/01632787241259186
Ellen Funkhouser, Rahma Mungia, Reesa Laws, Denis B Nyongesa, Suzanne Gillespie, Michael C Leo, Mary Ann McBurnie, Gregg H Gilbert
{"title":"2014-2022 年 11 项全国牙科实践研究网络调查的参与率。","authors":"Ellen Funkhouser, Rahma Mungia, Reesa Laws, Denis B Nyongesa, Suzanne Gillespie, Michael C Leo, Mary Ann McBurnie, Gregg H Gilbert","doi":"10.1177/01632787241259186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surveys of health professionals typically have low response rates, which have decreased in recent years. We report on the methods used, participation rates, and study time for 11 national questionnaire studies of dentists conducted from 2014-2022. Participation rates decreased (87%-25%). Concurrent with this decrease was a decrease in the intensity with which the practitioners were recruited. Participation rates were higher when postal mail invitation and paper options were used (84% vs. 58%, <i>p</i> < .001). Completion rates were nearly twice as high in studies that recruited in waves than those that did not (61% vs. 35%, <i>p</i> = .003). Study time varied from 2.6 to 28.4 weeks. Study time was longest when postal mail and completion on paper were used (26.0 vs. 11.3 weeks, <i>p</i> = .01). Among studies using only online methods, study time was longer when invitations were staggered than when all invitations went out in one bolus (means 12.0 and 5.2, <i>p</i> = .04). Study time was positively correlated with participation rates (Spearman r = .80, <i>p</i> = .005). General dentists participated at an average of 12% higher rates than specialists. Recruitment methodology, such as recruiting in waves or stages, should be considered when designing surveys.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participation Rates in 11 National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Surveys 2014-2022.\",\"authors\":\"Ellen Funkhouser, Rahma Mungia, Reesa Laws, Denis B Nyongesa, Suzanne Gillespie, Michael C Leo, Mary Ann McBurnie, Gregg H Gilbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787241259186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Surveys of health professionals typically have low response rates, which have decreased in recent years. We report on the methods used, participation rates, and study time for 11 national questionnaire studies of dentists conducted from 2014-2022. Participation rates decreased (87%-25%). Concurrent with this decrease was a decrease in the intensity with which the practitioners were recruited. Participation rates were higher when postal mail invitation and paper options were used (84% vs. 58%, <i>p</i> < .001). Completion rates were nearly twice as high in studies that recruited in waves than those that did not (61% vs. 35%, <i>p</i> = .003). Study time varied from 2.6 to 28.4 weeks. Study time was longest when postal mail and completion on paper were used (26.0 vs. 11.3 weeks, <i>p</i> = .01). Among studies using only online methods, study time was longer when invitations were staggered than when all invitations went out in one bolus (means 12.0 and 5.2, <i>p</i> = .04). Study time was positively correlated with participation rates (Spearman r = .80, <i>p</i> = .005). General dentists participated at an average of 12% higher rates than specialists. Recruitment methodology, such as recruiting in waves or stages, should be considered when designing surveys.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241259186\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241259186","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: 0

摘要

针对卫生专业人员的调查通常响应率较低,近年来响应率有所下降。我们报告了 2014-2022 年间开展的 11 项全国性牙医问卷调查所使用的方法、参与率和研究时间。参与率有所下降(87%-25%)。在参与率下降的同时,对从业人员的招募力度也有所减弱。使用邮寄邀请函和纸质选项时,参与率更高(84% 对 58%,p < .001)。分波招募的研究完成率几乎是非分波招募研究的两倍(61% 对 35%,P = .003)。研究时间从 2.6 周到 28.4 周不等。采用邮寄和纸质填写方式的研究耗时最长(26.0 周 vs. 11.3 周,p = .01)。在仅使用在线方法的研究中,交错发送邀请函的研究时间长于一次性发送所有邀请函的研究时间(平均值分别为 12.0 周和 5.2 周,p = .04)。学习时间与参与率呈正相关(Spearman r = .80,p = .005)。普通牙医的参与率比专科医生平均高出 12%。在设计调查时应考虑招募方法,例如分波或分阶段招募。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Participation Rates in 11 National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Surveys 2014-2022.

Surveys of health professionals typically have low response rates, which have decreased in recent years. We report on the methods used, participation rates, and study time for 11 national questionnaire studies of dentists conducted from 2014-2022. Participation rates decreased (87%-25%). Concurrent with this decrease was a decrease in the intensity with which the practitioners were recruited. Participation rates were higher when postal mail invitation and paper options were used (84% vs. 58%, p < .001). Completion rates were nearly twice as high in studies that recruited in waves than those that did not (61% vs. 35%, p = .003). Study time varied from 2.6 to 28.4 weeks. Study time was longest when postal mail and completion on paper were used (26.0 vs. 11.3 weeks, p = .01). Among studies using only online methods, study time was longer when invitations were staggered than when all invitations went out in one bolus (means 12.0 and 5.2, p = .04). Study time was positively correlated with participation rates (Spearman r = .80, p = .005). General dentists participated at an average of 12% higher rates than specialists. Recruitment methodology, such as recruiting in waves or stages, should be considered when designing surveys.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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