Primary care research - Trade-off between representativeness and response rate of GP teachers for undergraduates

Swiss Medical Weekly

Volumn 142, Issue MARCH, 2012, Pages

  Lippmann, Stefan ^a   Frese, Thomas ^a   Herrmann, Kristin ^a   Scheller, Kathleen ^a   Sandholzer, Hagen ^a  

^a Leipzig Medical School   (Germany)

Author keywords

General practice; Representativeness; Response bias; Response rate; Undergraduates

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; GERMANY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; TEACHER; UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; EDUCATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS;

EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; FACULTY, MEDICAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GENERAL PRACTICE; GERMANY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84859514113     PISSN: 14247860     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2012.13537     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Cockburn J, Campbell E, Gordon JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. Response bias in a study of General Practice. Fam Pract. 1988;5(1):18-23.
2. Creavin ST, Creavin AL, Mallen CD. Do GPs respond to postal questionnaire surveys? A comprehensive review of primary care literature. Fam. Pract. 2011;28:461-7.
3. Crouch S, Robinson P, Pitts M. A comparison of general practitioner response rates to electronic and postal surveys in the setting of the National STI Prevention Program. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011;35:187-9.
4. Guadagnoli E, Cunningham S. The effects on nonresponse and late response on a survey of physician attitudes. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 1989;12:318-28.
5. Bergk V, Gasse C, Schnell R, Haefeli W. Mail surveys: Obsolescent model or valuable instrument in general practice research? Swiss Med Wkly. 2005;189-91. (Pubitemid 40632286)
6. VanGeest J, Johnson T, Welch V. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 2007;30:303-21.
7. Barclay S, Todd C, Finlay I, Grande G, Wyatt P. Not another questionnaire! Maximizing the response rate, predicting non response and assessing non response bias in postal questionnaire studies of GPs. Fam Pract. 2002;19(1):105-11. (Pubitemid 34173284)
8. List of members. Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Sachsen (KVS, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Saxony) c2009 - [cited 2009]. Available from: http://www.kvs-sachsen.de/mitglieder/
9. Unpublished data provided by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV), personal communication with Mr. Hannes Munz, 17.03.2011.
10. Bjertnaes O, Garrat A, Botten G. Nonresponse bias and cost-effectiveness in a Norwegian survey of family physicians. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 2008;31:65-80.
11. McLaren B, Shelley J. Response rates of Victorian general practitioners to a mailed survey on miscarriage: randomised trial of a prize and two forms of introduction to the research. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24:360-4.
12. Edwards PJ, Roberts IG, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires (Review). The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2.
13. Chmiel C, Bhend H, Senn O, Zoller M, Rosemann T. The FIRE project. A milestone for research in primary care in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2011,140:w13142.
14. Asch D, Jedrziewski M, Christakis N. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:1129-36. (Pubitemid 27477990)
15. Robertson J, Walkom E, McGettigan P. Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:571-7. (Pubitemid 41179487)
16. Templeton L, Deehan A, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J. Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter? Br J Gen Pract. 1997;47:91-4. (Pubitemid 27075388)
17. Sudman S. Mail surveys of reluctant professionals. Evaluation Review. 1985;9(3):349-60.
18. Flanigan TS, McFarlane E, Cook S 2008. Conducting survey research among physicians and other medical professionals - A review of current literature. Presented at the AAPOR 2008; May 2008; New Orleans, LA, USA.
19. Kaner EFS, Haighton CA, McAvoy BR. "So much post, so busy with practice - so, no time": A telephone survey of general practitioners'reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:1067-9. (Pubitemid 28111885)
20. Rashidian A, van der Meulen J, Russell I. Differences in the contents of two randomized surveys of GPs' prescribing intentions affected response rates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:718-21.
21. McFarlane E, Olmsted MG, Murphy J, Hill CA. Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians, Evaluation & the Health Professions. 2007;30(2):170-85.
22. Cartwright A. Professionals as responders: variations in and effects of response rates to questionnaires, 1961-77. Br Med J. 1978;2:1419-21.
23. Stocks N, Gunnell D. What are the characteristics of general practitioners who routinely do not return postal questionnaires: a cross sectional study. J Epidemiol. & Community Health 2000;54:940-1.
24. Giveon S, Kahan E, Kitai E. Factors associated with family physicians' involvement in research in Israel. Acad Med. 1997;72 (5):388-90. (Pubitemid 27213444)
25. Hummers-Pradier E, Scheidt-Nave C, Martin H, Heinemann S, Kochen M, Himmel W. Simply no time? Barriers to GPs' participation in primary health care research. Fam Pract. 2008;25(2):105-12. (Pubitemid 351753541)
26. Silagy C, Carson N. Factors affecting the level of interest and activity in primary care research among general practitioners. Fam Pract. 1989;6(3):173-6. (Pubitemid 19240044)
27. Hartley S, MacFarlane F, Gantley M, Murray E. Influence on general practitioners of teaching undergraduates: qualitative study of London general practitioner teachers. Br Med J. 1999; 319:1168-71. (Pubitemid 29502021)
28. Grant A, Prout H, Hawthorne KT, Jones L, Houston H. Some effects of teaching undergraduate medical students on general practitioner thinking and learning. Educ Prim Care. 2010;21:97-104.
29. Morris, CJ, Cantrill, JA, Weiss, MC. GP survey response rate: a miscellany of influencing factors. Fam Pract. 2001;18(4):454-6. (Pubitemid 32771651)
30. Borgiel AE, Dunn EV, Campbell LT, MacDonald PJ, Evensen MK, Bass MJ, et al. Recruiting family physicians as participants in research. Fam Pract. 1989;6(3):168-72. (Pubitemid 19240043)