Surveying physicians: Do components of the "total design approach" to optimizing survey response rates apply to physicians?

Medical Care

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2002, Pages 596-605

  Field, Terry S ^a,e   Cadoret, Cynthia A ^a,e   Brown, Martin L ^b   Ford, Marvella ^c   Greene, Sarah M ^d   Hill, Deanna ^c   Hornbrook, Mark C ^f   Meenan, Richard T ^f   White, Mary Jo ^e   Zapka, Jane M ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Physicians; Response rate; Surveys

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MOTIVATION; PHYSICIAN; POSTAL MAIL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; PHYSICIANS; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 19044392241     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200207000-00006     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Ayanian JZ, Haptman PJ, Guadagnoli E, et al. Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1136-1142.
2. Wynia MK, Cummins DS, VanGeest JB, et al. Physician manipulation of reimbursement rules for patients: between a rock and a hard place. JAMA 2000;283:1858-1865.
3. Astin JA, Marie A, Pelletier KR, et al. A review of the incorporation of complementary and alternative medicine by mainstream physicians. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:2303-2310.
4. Emanuel EJ, Fairclough D, Clarridge BC, et al. Attitudes and practices of U.S. oncologists regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:527-532.
5. Lewis CE, Prout DM, Chalmers EP, et al. How satisfying is the practice of internal medicine? A national survey Ann Intern Med 1991;114:1-5.
6. Berk ML, Mueller CD, Thran S. Can survey data be used to estimate physician practice costs? Eval Health Prof 1996;19:14-29.
7. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Cristakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129-1136.
8. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 2001;35:1347-1355.
9. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1999.
10. Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys: A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:61-67.
11. Gunn W, Rhodes I. Physician response rates to a telephone survey: Effects of monetary incentive level. Public Opin Q 1981;45:109-115.
12. Mizes S, Fleece L, Roos C. Incentives for increasing return rates: magnitude levels, response bias, and format. Public Opin Q 1984;48:794-800.
13. Berk ML, Edwards WS, Gay NL. The use of a prepaid incentive to convert nonresponders on a survey of physicians. Eval Health Prof 1993;16:239-245.
14. Deehan A, Templeton L, Taylor C, et al. The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study Br J Gen Pract 1997;47:87-90.
15. Everett SA, Price JH, Bedell AW, et al. The effect of a monetary incentive in increasing the return rate of a survey to family physicians. Eval Health Prof 1997;20:207-214.
16. Donaldson GW, Moinpour CM, Bush NE, et al. Physician participation in research surveys: A randomized study of inducements to return mailed research questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 1999;22:427-441.
17. Kasprzyk D, Montano DE, St. Lawrence JS, et al. The effects of variations in mode of delivery and monetary incentive on physicians' responses to a mailed survey assessing STD practice patterns. Eval Health Prof 2001;24:3-17.
18. Asch DA, Christakis NA, Ubel PA. Conducting physician mail surveys on a limited budget. A randomized trial comparing $2 bill versus $5 bill incentives. Med Care 1998;36:95-99.
19. Vangeest JB, Wynia MK, Cummins DS, et al. Effects of different monetary incentives on the return rate of a national mail survey of physicians. Med Care 2001;39:197-201.
20. Berry SH, Kanouse DE Physician response to a mailed survey: An experiment in timing of payment. Public Opin Q 1098;51:102-114.
21. Mullen P, Easling L, Nixon SA, et al. The cost-effectiveness of randomized incentive and follow-up contacts in a national mail survey of family physicians. Eval Health Prof 1987;10:232-245.
22. Easton AN, Price JH, Telljohann SK, et al. An informational versus monetary incentive in increasing physicians'response rates. Psychol Rep 1997;81:968-970.
23. Bonito AJ, Samsa GP, Akin DR, et al. Use of a non-monetary incentive to improve physician responses to a mail survey. Acad Med 1997;72:73.
24. Ward J, Bruce T, Holt P, et al. Labour-saving strategies to maintain survey response rates: a randomised trial. Aust N Z J Public Health 1998;22(suppl):394-396.
25. Olson L, Schneiderman M, Armstrong RV. Increasing physician survey response rates without biasing survey results. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 1993: 1036-1041.
26. Baron G, De Wals P, Milord F. Cost-effectiveness of a lottery for increasing physicians' responses to a mail survey. Eval Health Prof 2001;24:47-52.
27. Marin J, Howe HL. Physicians' attitudes toward breast self-examination: a pilot study. Eval Health Prof 1984;7:193.
28. Griffith LE, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al. Comparison of open and closed questionnaire formats in obtaining demographic information from Canadian general internists. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:997-1005.
29. Shiono PH, Klebanoff MA. The effect of two mailing strategies on the response to a survey of physicians. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134:539-542.
30. Ward J, Wain G. Increasing response rates of gynaecologists to a survey: a randomised trial of telephone prompts. Aust J Public Health 1994;18:332-334.
31. Osborn M, Ward J, Boyle C. Effectiveness of telephone prompts when surveying general practitioners: a randomised trial. Aust Fam Physician 1996;(suppl):S41-S43.
32. Pirotta M, Gunn J, Farish S, et al. Primer postcard improves postal survey response rates. Aust N Z J Public Health 1999;23:196-197.
33. Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, et al. Effectiveness of various mailing strategies among nonrespondents in a prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 1990;131:1068-1071.
34. Asch DA, Christakis NA. Different response rates in a trial of two envelop styles in mail survey research. Epidemiology 1994;5:364-365.
35. Del Valle ML, Morgenstern H, Rogstad TL, et al. A randomized trial of the impact of certified mail on response rate to a physician survey, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eval Health Prof 1997;20:389-406.
36. Olson L, Thran S, Strouse R. The effectiveness and costs of special data collection efforts in a telephone survey of physicians. In: Proceedings of the Survey Research Section, American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 1987:761-766.
37. Gullen WH, Garrison GE. Factors influencing physicians'response to mailed questionnaires. Health Serv Rep 1973;88:510-514.
38. Urban N, Anderson GL, Tseng A. Effects on response rates and costs of stamps vs business reply in a mail survey of physicians. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:455-459.
39. Heywood A, Mudge P, Ring I, et al. Reducing systematic bias in studies of general practitioners: The use of a medical peer in the recruitment of general practitioners in research. Fam Pract 1995;12:227-231.
40. Temple-Smith M, Mulvey G, Doyle W. Maximising response rates in a survey of general practitioners. Lessons from a Victorian survey on sexually transmissible diseases. Aust Fam Physician 1998;27:S15-S18.
41. Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J. Increasing response rates in physicians' mail surveys: an experimental study. Am J Public Health 1989;79:638-639.
42. Shosteck H, Fairweather WR, Physician response rates to mail and personal interview surveys. Public Opin Q 1979;43:206-217.
43. Ogborne AC, Rush BR, Fondacaro R. Dealing with nonrespondents in a mail survey of professionals: The cost-effectiveness of two alternatives. Eval Health Prof 1986;9:121-128.
44. Parsons J, Warnecke RRC, Barnsley J, et al. Factors associated with response rates in a national survey of primary care physicians. Eval Rev 1994;18:756-765.
45. Sibbald B, Addington-Hall J. Brenneman D, et al. Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44:297-300.
46. Thran SL, Hixson JS. Physician surveys: recent difficulties and proposed solutions. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2000:233-237.
47. Heberlein TA, Baumgartner R. Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. Am Sociol Rev 1978;43:447-462.
48. Fox RJ, Crask MR, Kim J. Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opin Q 1988;52:467-491.
49. Yammarino FJ, Skinner SJ, Childers TL. Understanding mail survey response behavior: A meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 1991;55:613-639.
50. Hopkins KD, Gullickson AR. Response rates in survey research: A meta-analysis of the effects of monetary gratuities. Journal of Experimental Education 1992;61:52-62.
51. Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 1993;57:62-79.
52. American Association of Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Available at: http:// www.aapor.org/ethics/stddef.html. Accessed on November 6, 2001.
53. Cartwright A. Professionals as responders: variations in and effects of response rates to questionnaires, 1961-77;Br Med J:1978;2:1419-1421.
54. Cockburn J, Campbell E, Gordon JJ, et al. Response bias in a study of general practice. Fam Pract 1988;5:18-23.
55. Myerson S. Improving the response rates in primary care research. Some methods used in a survey on stress in general practice since the new contract (1990). Fam Pract 1993;10:342-346.
56. Tambor ES, Chase GA, Faden RR, et al. Improving response rates through incentive and follow-up: the effect on a survey of physicians' knowledge of genetics. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1599-1603.
57. Sobal J, Ferentz K. Comparing physician responses to the first and second mailing of a questionnaire. Eval Health Prof 1989;12:329-339.
58. Bostick R, Pirie P, Luepker RV, et al. Using physician caller follow-ups to improve the response rate to a physician telephone survey. Eval Health Prof 1992;15:420-433.
59. Guadagnoli E, Cunningham S. The effects of nonresponse and late response on a survey of physician attitudes. Eval Health Prof 1989;12:318-328.
60. Olivarius N de F, Andreasen AH. Day-of-the-week effect on doctors' response to a postal questionnaire. Scand J Prim Health Care 1995;13:65-67.
61. Berk ML. Interviewing physicians: the effect of improved response rate. Am J Public Health 1985;75:1338-1340.
62. Templeton L, Deehan A, Taylor C, et al. Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter? Br J Gen Pract 1997;47:91-94.
63. Malin JL, Rideout J, Ganz PA. Tracking managed care: The importance of a cash incentive for medical director response to a survey. Am J Manag Care 2000;6:1209-1214.