Predictors for electronic survey completion in healthcare research

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 297-301

  Beling, Jennifer ^a   Libertini, Linda S ^a   Sun, Zhiyuan ^a   Masina, V Maria ^a   Albert, Nancy M ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer; e health; Electronic surveys; Healthcare research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTINUING EDUCATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTERNET; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EDUCATION, CONTINUING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTERNET; OHIO;

EID: 79958759000     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e3182065fbb     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Internet: the mainstreaming of online life. 2005. Trends 2005. http://www.pewinternet. org/pdfs/Internet- Status-2005. Accessed September 7, 2007.
2. HuangH, Liaw S. Exploring users' attitudes and intentions toward the Web as a survey tool. Comput Hum Behav. 2004;21(2005):729-743. (Pubitemid 40309101)
3. Schmeida M. Telehealth Innovation in the American States [dissertation]. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest; 2005.
4. Stewart S. Casting the net: using the Internet for survey research. Br J Midwifery. 2003;11(9):543-546. (Pubitemid 37077858)
5. Kypri K, Gallagher SJ, Cashell-Smith ML. An Internet-based survey method for college student drinking research. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;76:45-53. (Pubitemid 39360272)
6. Wharton CM, Hampl JS, Hall R, Winham DM. PCs or paperand- pencil: online surveys for data collection. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(11):1458-1460.
7. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R. A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q. 2004;68(1):94-101. (Pubitemid 38750629)
8. Vispoel WL. Computerized versus paper-and-pencil assessment of self-concept: score comparability and respondent preferences. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2000;33:130-143.
9. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35:382-385. (Pubitemid 17184381)
10. VanDenKerkhof EG, Goldstein DH, Blaine WC, Rimmer MJ. A comparison of paper with electronic patient-completed questionnaires in a preoperative clinic. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1075-1080. (Pubitemid 41383077)
11. Koestler ME, Libby E, Schofferman J, Redmond T. Web-based touch-screen computer assessment of chronic low back pain. A pilot study. Comput Inform Nurs. 2005;23:275-284. (Pubitemid 41499940)
12. Cotton SR, Gupta SS. Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. J Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:1795-1806. (Pubitemid 39093781)
13. McNeill LH, Puleo E, Bennett GG, Emmons KM. Exploring social contextual correlates of computer ownership and frequency of use among urban, low-income, public housing adult residents. J Med Internet Res. 2007;139:e35.
14. Al-Azmi SF, Al-Enezi N, Chowdhury RI. Users' attitudes to an electronic medical record system and its correlates: a multivariate analysis. HIM J. 2009;38(2):33-40.
15. Lear SA, Araki Y, Maric B, Kaan A, Horvat D. Prevalence and characteristics of home Internet access in patients with cardiovascular disease from diverse geographical locations. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25(10):589-593.
16. The MyPractice Community Electronic Medical Record (EMR) System: a clear choice for physicians in private practice. http:// www.clevelandclinic.org/ transform/stimulus.htm?utm. Accessed December 14, 2009.