A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians
Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-08, Vol.13 (8), p.e0202755-e0202755 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0202755 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | e0202755 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Brtnikova, Michaela Crane, Lori A Allison, Mandy A Hurley, Laura P Beaty, Brenda L Kempe, Allison |
| description | Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in response rates based on survey mode and primary care specialty. As part of a study to assess vaccine policy issues, 13 separate surveys were conducted by internet and mail over the period of 2008 to 2013. Surveys were conducted among pre-recruited networks of pediatricians, family physicians and general internists. Each network was active for 2 years and responded to 3-6 surveys. Physicians who indicated preference to respond through an online survey received up to 9 e-mailed requests to complete the questionnaire and up to 2 mailed questionnaires. Physicians who chose to respond by mail received up to 3 mailed questionnaires and a reminder postcard. For 6 of the 13 surveys conducted over the 6 year period, an additional mailing using a hand-addressed envelope was mailed to non-responders at the end of the usual protocol. Effectiveness of survey methods was measured by response rates. The overall response rates varied from 66‒83%. Response rates declined 17 percentage-points on average between the first and last surveys administered within each physician network. The internet group consistently had higher response rates than the mail group (74% vs. 62% on average). An additional mailing in a hand-written envelope boosted the final response rate by 11 percentage-points. Self-selection of survey mode, multiple reminders, and hand-written envelopes are effective methods for maximizing response rates in physician surveys. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0202755 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2092587653</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A551445807</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_fe3a3cad555f4bbe82f5fa12906e916c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A551445807</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b7f482460be1df19b1d58129b9e534efe763a876e81312c1f27cac467dc38243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01r3DAQhk1padK0_6C0gkJpD-vqw5LtS2EJ_VgIBJqmxwpZHtkKXmsj2Uv331ebdcK65FB8kJGe953RaCZJXhOcEpaTTzdu9L3q0o3rIcUU05zzJ8kpKRldCIrZ06P_k-RFCDcYc1YI8Tw5YZiwIsPiNPm9RGsYWlcj4zxSurWwtX2DWtu0yEOI7gGQVwMEZHvUq8G6GBWF0W9hF5Az6Dq9StHG27XyO6SVB7Rpd8Fqq_rwMnlmVBfg1bSeJddfv_w8_764uPy2Ol9eLLQo6bDgVW6ygmYCV0BqQ8qK1LwgtKxK4CwDA7lgqsgFFIQRqomhuVY6E3mtWdSxs-TtwXfTuSCn0gRJcUl5lHEWidWBqJ26kVO60ikr7zacb6Tyg9UdSANMMa1qzrnJqgoKarhRMRssoCRCR6_PU7SxWkOtoR-86mam85PetrJxWykIzinB0eDDZODd7QhhkGsbNHSd6sGNd3kzhjNCRUTf_YM-fruJalS8gO2Ni3H13lQuOSdZxgucRyp9hIpfDWurYx8ZG_dngo8zQWQG-DM0agxBrq5-_D97-WvOvj9iW1Dd0AbXjfvmCnMwO4DauxA8mIciEyz3Y3BfDbkfAzmNQZS9OX6gB9F937O_QKkBxg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2092587653</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Brtnikova, Michaela ; Crane, Lori A ; Allison, Mandy A ; Hurley, Laura P ; Beaty, Brenda L ; Kempe, Allison</creator><contributor>Graetz, Ilana</contributor><creatorcontrib>Brtnikova, Michaela ; Crane, Lori A ; Allison, Mandy A ; Hurley, Laura P ; Beaty, Brenda L ; Kempe, Allison ; Graetz, Ilana</creatorcontrib><description>Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in response rates based on survey mode and primary care specialty. As part of a study to assess vaccine policy issues, 13 separate surveys were conducted by internet and mail over the period of 2008 to 2013. Surveys were conducted among pre-recruited networks of pediatricians, family physicians and general internists. Each network was active for 2 years and responded to 3-6 surveys. Physicians who indicated preference to respond through an online survey received up to 9 e-mailed requests to complete the questionnaire and up to 2 mailed questionnaires. Physicians who chose to respond by mail received up to 3 mailed questionnaires and a reminder postcard. For 6 of the 13 surveys conducted over the 6 year period, an additional mailing using a hand-addressed envelope was mailed to non-responders at the end of the usual protocol. Effectiveness of survey methods was measured by response rates. The overall response rates varied from 66‒83%. Response rates declined 17 percentage-points on average between the first and last surveys administered within each physician network. The internet group consistently had higher response rates than the mail group (74% vs. 62% on average). An additional mailing in a hand-written envelope boosted the final response rate by 11 percentage-points. Self-selection of survey mode, multiple reminders, and hand-written envelopes are effective methods for maximizing response rates in physician surveys.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202755</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30138406</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Children & youth ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Electronic Mail ; Health care ; Health Services Research ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Immunization ; Incentives ; Internal medicine ; Internet ; Mail ; Measurement methods ; Medical care ; Medical personnel ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Monetary incentives ; Pediatrics ; People and Places ; Physicians ; Physicians, Primary Care ; Polls & surveys ; Postal Service ; Practice ; Primary care ; Reminder ; Reminder Systems ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Researchers ; Response rates ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-08, Vol.13 (8), p.e0202755-e0202755</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Brtnikova et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Brtnikova et al 2018 Brtnikova et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b7f482460be1df19b1d58129b9e534efe763a876e81312c1f27cac467dc38243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b7f482460be1df19b1d58129b9e534efe763a876e81312c1f27cac467dc38243</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2805-6490</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107210/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107210/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30138406$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Graetz, Ilana</contributor><creatorcontrib>Brtnikova, Michaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crane, Lori A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allison, Mandy A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, Laura P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beaty, Brenda L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kempe, Allison</creatorcontrib><title>A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in response rates based on survey mode and primary care specialty. As part of a study to assess vaccine policy issues, 13 separate surveys were conducted by internet and mail over the period of 2008 to 2013. Surveys were conducted among pre-recruited networks of pediatricians, family physicians and general internists. Each network was active for 2 years and responded to 3-6 surveys. Physicians who indicated preference to respond through an online survey received up to 9 e-mailed requests to complete the questionnaire and up to 2 mailed questionnaires. Physicians who chose to respond by mail received up to 3 mailed questionnaires and a reminder postcard. For 6 of the 13 surveys conducted over the 6 year period, an additional mailing using a hand-addressed envelope was mailed to non-responders at the end of the usual protocol. Effectiveness of survey methods was measured by response rates. The overall response rates varied from 66‒83%. Response rates declined 17 percentage-points on average between the first and last surveys administered within each physician network. The internet group consistently had higher response rates than the mail group (74% vs. 62% on average). An additional mailing in a hand-written envelope boosted the final response rate by 11 percentage-points. Self-selection of survey mode, multiple reminders, and hand-written envelopes are effective methods for maximizing response rates in physician surveys.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Children & youth</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Electronic Mail</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Services Research</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunization</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>Internal medicine</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Mail</subject><subject>Measurement methods</subject><subject>Medical care</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Monetary incentives</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Physicians, Primary Care</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Postal Service</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Reminder</subject><subject>Reminder Systems</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01r3DAQhk1padK0_6C0gkJpD-vqw5LtS2EJ_VgIBJqmxwpZHtkKXmsj2Uv331ebdcK65FB8kJGe953RaCZJXhOcEpaTTzdu9L3q0o3rIcUU05zzJ8kpKRldCIrZ06P_k-RFCDcYc1YI8Tw5YZiwIsPiNPm9RGsYWlcj4zxSurWwtX2DWtu0yEOI7gGQVwMEZHvUq8G6GBWF0W9hF5Az6Dq9StHG27XyO6SVB7Rpd8Fqq_rwMnlmVBfg1bSeJddfv_w8_764uPy2Ol9eLLQo6bDgVW6ygmYCV0BqQ8qK1LwgtKxK4CwDA7lgqsgFFIQRqomhuVY6E3mtWdSxs-TtwXfTuSCn0gRJcUl5lHEWidWBqJ26kVO60ikr7zacb6Tyg9UdSANMMa1qzrnJqgoKarhRMRssoCRCR6_PU7SxWkOtoR-86mam85PetrJxWykIzinB0eDDZODd7QhhkGsbNHSd6sGNd3kzhjNCRUTf_YM-fruJalS8gO2Ni3H13lQuOSdZxgucRyp9hIpfDWurYx8ZG_dngo8zQWQG-DM0agxBrq5-_D97-WvOvj9iW1Dd0AbXjfvmCnMwO4DauxA8mIciEyz3Y3BfDbkfAzmNQZS9OX6gB9F937O_QKkBxg</recordid><startdate>20180823</startdate><enddate>20180823</enddate><creator>Brtnikova, Michaela</creator><creator>Crane, Lori A</creator><creator>Allison, Mandy A</creator><creator>Hurley, Laura P</creator><creator>Beaty, Brenda L</creator><creator>Kempe, Allison</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2805-6490</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180823</creationdate><title>A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians</title><author>Brtnikova, Michaela ; Crane, Lori A ; Allison, Mandy A ; Hurley, Laura P ; Beaty, Brenda L ; Kempe, Allison</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5b7f482460be1df19b1d58129b9e534efe763a876e81312c1f27cac467dc38243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Children & youth</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Electronic Mail</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Services Research</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunization</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>Internal medicine</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Mail</topic><topic>Measurement methods</topic><topic>Medical care</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Monetary incentives</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Physicians, Primary Care</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Postal Service</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Reminder</topic><topic>Reminder Systems</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brtnikova, Michaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crane, Lori A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allison, Mandy A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, Laura P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beaty, Brenda L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kempe, Allison</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brtnikova, Michaela</au><au>Crane, Lori A</au><au>Allison, Mandy A</au><au>Hurley, Laura P</au><au>Beaty, Brenda L</au><au>Kempe, Allison</au><au>Graetz, Ilana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-08-23</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0202755</spage><epage>e0202755</epage><pages>e0202755-e0202755</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in response rates based on survey mode and primary care specialty. As part of a study to assess vaccine policy issues, 13 separate surveys were conducted by internet and mail over the period of 2008 to 2013. Surveys were conducted among pre-recruited networks of pediatricians, family physicians and general internists. Each network was active for 2 years and responded to 3-6 surveys. Physicians who indicated preference to respond through an online survey received up to 9 e-mailed requests to complete the questionnaire and up to 2 mailed questionnaires. Physicians who chose to respond by mail received up to 3 mailed questionnaires and a reminder postcard. For 6 of the 13 surveys conducted over the 6 year period, an additional mailing using a hand-addressed envelope was mailed to non-responders at the end of the usual protocol. Effectiveness of survey methods was measured by response rates. The overall response rates varied from 66‒83%. Response rates declined 17 percentage-points on average between the first and last surveys administered within each physician network. The internet group consistently had higher response rates than the mail group (74% vs. 62% on average). An additional mailing in a hand-written envelope boosted the final response rate by 11 percentage-points. Self-selection of survey mode, multiple reminders, and hand-written envelopes are effective methods for maximizing response rates in physician surveys.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30138406</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0202755</doi><tpages>e0202755</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2805-6490</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2018-08, Vol.13 (8), p.e0202755-e0202755 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2092587653 |
| source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adult Biology and Life Sciences Children & youth Computer and Information Sciences Electronic Mail Health care Health Services Research Hospitals Humans Immunization Incentives Internal medicine Internet Measurement methods Medical care Medical personnel Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Middle Aged Monetary incentives Pediatrics People and Places Physicians Physicians, Primary Care Polls & surveys Postal Service Practice Primary care Reminder Reminder Systems Research and Analysis Methods Researchers Response rates Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires United States |
| title | A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T23%3A36%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20method%20for%20achieving%20high%20response%20rates%20in%20national%20surveys%20of%20U.S.%20primary%20care%20physicians&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Brtnikova,%20Michaela&rft.date=2018-08-23&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0202755&rft.epage=e0202755&rft.pages=e0202755-e0202755&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0202755&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA551445807%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2092587653&rft_id=info:pmid/30138406&rft_galeid=A551445807&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_fe3a3cad555f4bbe82f5fa12906e916c&rfr_iscdi=true |