The effect on response rate of a reminder and the GP's motivation;Betydning af påmindelser og lægens engagement ved en spørgeskemaundersøgelse i almen praksis

Ugeskrift for Laeger

Volumn 163, Issue 40, 2001, Pages 5529-5532

  Vedsted, Peter ^a   Mainz, Jan ^b   Olesen, Frede ^b  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENMARK; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REMINDER SYSTEM; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

ADULT; DENMARK; FAMILY PRACTICE; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN'S ROLE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REMINDER SYSTEMS;

EID: 0035487885     PISSN: 00415782     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Rubin HR. Patient evaluations of hospital care. A review of the literature. Med Care 1990; 28: 3-9.
2. Lasek RJ, Barkley W, Harper DL, Rosenthal GE. An evaluation of the impact of nonresponse bias on patient satisfaction surveys. Med Care 1997; 35: 646-52.
3. Etter JF, Perneger TV. Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1123-8.
4. Yammarino FJ, Skinner SJ, Childers TL. Understanding mail survey response behavior. A meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 1991; 55: 613-39.
5. Fox RJ, Crask MR, Kim J. Mail survey response rate. A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opin Q 1988; 52: 467-91.
6. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1129-36.
7. Mainz J, Olesen F, Vedsted P. Hvad forvenler patienterne af de praktiserende læger? Danske resultater fra et europæisk studium. Ugeskr Læger 1998; 160: 4876-81.
8. Wensing M, Mainz J, Kvamme OJ, Jung HP, Ribacke M. Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 585-7.
9. Wensing M, Grol R, Smits A, Van MP. Evaluation of general practice care by chronically ill patients: effect of the method of administration. Fam Pract 1996; 13: 386-90.