Does flattery work? A comparison of 2 different cover letters for an international survey of orthopedic surgeons

Canadian Journal of Surgery

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 90-95

  Leece, Pam ^a   Bhandari, Mohit ^a   Sprague, Sheila ^a   Swiontkowski, Marc F ^b   Schemitsch, Emil H ^c   Tornetta III, Paul ^d  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMUR NECK FRACTURE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL SOCIETY; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SURGEON; WRITING; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; STANDARD;

ADULT; CORRESPONDENCE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33646580704     PISSN: 0008428X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:61-7.
2. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129-36.
3. Matarasso A, Elkwood A, Rankin M, et al. National plastic surgery survey: face lift techniques and complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:1185-95.
4. Almeida OD Jr. Current state of office laparoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2000;7:545-6.
5. Khalily C, Behnke S, Seligson D. Treatment of closed tibial shaft fractures: a survey from the 1997 Orthopaedic Trauma Association and Osteosynthesis International Gerhard Kuntscher Kreis Meeting. J Orthop Trauma 2000;14:577-81.
6. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Surgeons' preferences in the operative treatment of tibial shaft fractures: an international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:1746-52.
7. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 2001; 35:1347-55.
8. Sibbald B, Addington-Hall J, Brenneman D, et al. Telephone vs postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44:297-300.
9. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1999.
10. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002;324: 1183-5.
11. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Methods to influence response to postal questionnaires [Cochrane Methodology Review]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 3, 2002. Oxford: Update Software.
12. Field TS, Cadoret CA, Brown ML, et al. Surveying physicians: Do components of the "total design approach" to optimizing survey response rates apply to physicians? Med Care 2002;40:596-606.
13. Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J. Increasing response rates in physicians' mail surveys: an experimental study. Am J Public Health 1989;79:638-9.
14. Feinstein AR. The theory and evaluation of sensibility. In: Feinstein AR, editor. Clinimetrics. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; 1987. p. 23-30.
15. Mullner RM, Levy PS, Byre CS, et al. Effects of characteristics of the survey instrument on response rates to a mail survey of community hospitals. Public Health Rep 1982;97:465-9.