Objective: To assess the effects of two different mixed-mode (mail and web survey) combinations on response rates, response times, and nonresponse bias in a sample of primary care and specialty internal medicine physicians.

Data Sources/study Setting: Primary data were collected from 500 physicians with an appointment in the Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine (DOM) between February and March 2005.

Study Design: Physicians were randomly assigned to receive either an initial mailed survey evaluating the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) with a web survey follow-up to nonrespondents or its converse-an initial web survey followed by a mailed survey to nonrespondents. Response rates for each condition were calculated using standard formula. Response times were determined as well. Nonresponse bias was measured by comparing selected characteristics of survey respondents to similar characteristics in the full sample frame. In addition, the distributions of results on key outcome variables were compared overall and by data collection condition and phase.

Principal Findings: Overall response rates were somewhat higher in the mail/web condition (70.5 percent) than in the web/mail condition (62.9 percent); differences were more pronounced before the mode switch prior to the mailing to nonrespondents. Median response time was 2 days faster in the web/mail condition than in the mail/web (median=5 and 7 days, respectively) but there was evidence of under-representation of specialist physicians and those who used the EMR a half a day or less each day in the web/mail condition before introduction of the mailed component. This did not translate into significant inconsistencies or differences in the distributions of key outcome variables, however.

Conclusions: A methodology that uses an initial mailing of a self-administered form followed by a web survey to nonrespondents provides slightly higher response rates and a more representative sample than one that starts with web and ends with a mailed survey. However, if the length of the data collection period is limited and rapid response is important, perhaps the web survey followed by a mailed questionnaire is to be preferred. Key outcome variables appear to be unaffected by the data collection method.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955260PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00652.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

web survey
20
response rates
16
mailed survey
12
key outcome
12
outcome variables
12
data collection
12
web/mail condition
12
survey
10
response
8
response times
8

Similar Publications

Purpose: We surveyed vitreoretinal (VR) fellowship program directors (PDs) to elucidate how they assess surgical competency among VR fellows. In addition, we also surveyed fellowship program graduates for the years 2022 and 2023 regarding assessment metrics and tools used during VR fellowship training.

Design: Web-based, cross-sectional descriptive study.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Measurements of capacity to work (CTW) in relation to common mental disorders (CMD) are needed to improve research on determinants for maintained work participation (WP). The aim of this study was to assess the construct validity of the Capacity to Work Index (C2WI) in a heterogenous sample of the Swedish working population. Cross-sectional web survey data among Swedish employees (n = 8201) was used.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

A major challenge of our time is reducing disparities in access to and effective use of digital technologies, with recent discussions highlighting the role of AI in exacerbating the digital divide. We examine user characteristics that predict usage of the AI-powered conversational agent ChatGPT. We combine behavioral and survey data in a web tracked sample of N = 1376 German citizens to investigate differences in ChatGPT activity (usage, visits, and adoption) during the first 11 months from the launch of the service (November 30, 2022).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Publishing medical metadata stored in case report forms (CRFs) is a prerequisite for the development of a learning health system (LHS) by fostering reuse of metadata and standardization in health research. The aim of our study was to investigate medical researchers' (MRs) willingness to share CRFs, to identify reasons for and against CRF sharing, and to determine if and under which conditions MRs might consider sharing CRF metadata via a public registry.

Methods: We examined CRF data sharing commitments for 1842 interventional trials registered on the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS) from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Sharing patient health information and biospecimens can improve health outcomes and accelerate breakthroughs in medical research. But patients generally lack understanding of how their clinical data and biospecimens are used or commercialized for research. In this mixed methods project, we assessed the impact of communication materials on patient understanding, attitudes, and perceptions.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!