No difference demonstrated between faxed or mailed prenotification in promoting questionnaire response among family physicians: A randomized controlled trial

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 65, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 544-552

  Gattellari, Melina ^a   Zwar, Nicholas ^a   Worthington, John M ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b INGHAM INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED MEDICAL RESEARCH   (Australia)

^c Sydney South West Area Health Service   (Australia)

Author keywords

Family physicians; Message; Postal questionnaires; Prenotification prompts; Randomized controlled trial; Response rate

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUSTRALIA; CONTROLLED STUDY; E-MAIL; FAX; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRENOTIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SELF REPORT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; POSTAL MAIL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REMINDER SYSTEM; STATISTICS; TIME;

AUSTRALIA; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTAL SERVICE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REMINDER SYSTEMS; SELECTION BIAS; TELEFACSIMILE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84861137278     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.014     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE. Maximising response to postal questionnairesda systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:5.
2. VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof 2007;30:303-21.
3. Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:61-7.
4. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2009; (3):MR000008.
5. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in medicine. In: Mayrent SL, editor. Boston, MA/Toronto, Canada: Little, Brown and Company; 1987. pp 101-212.
6. Drummond FJ, Carsin AE, Sharp L, Comber H. Factors prompting PSA-testing of asymptomatic men in a country with no guidelines: a national survey of general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract 2009;10:3.
7. Bjertnaes OA, Garratt A, Botten G. Nonresponse bias and cost-effectiveness in a Norwegian survey of family physicians. Eval Health Prof 2008;31:65-80.
8. Siversten LM, Woolfenden SR, Woodhead HJ, Lewis D. Diagnosis and management of childhood obesity: a survey of general practitioners in South West Sydney. J Paediatr Child Health 2008;44:622-9.
9. Key C, Layton D, Shakir SA. Results of a postal survey of the reasons for non-response by doctors in a prescription event monitoring study of drug safety. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002;11:143-8.
10. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 2001;35:1347-55.
11. Askew DA, Clavarino AM, Glasziou PP, Del Mar CB. General practice research: attitudes and involvement of Queensland general practitioners. Med J Aust 2002;177:74-7.
12. McAvoy BR, Kaner EFS. General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far? BMJ 1996;313:732-3.
13. Osborn M, Ward J, Boyle C. Effectiveness of telephone prompts when surveying general practitioners: a randomised controlled trial. Aust Fam Physician 1996; (Suppl 1):S41-3.
14. Gupta L, Ward J, D'Este C. Differential effectiveness of telephone prompts by medical and nonmedical staff in increasing survey response rates: a randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Public Health 1997;21:98-9.
15. Middleton S, Sharpe D, Harris J, Corbett A, Lusby R, Ward J. Case scenarios to assess Australian general practitioners' understanding of stroke diagnosis, management and prevention. Stroke 2003;34:2681-6.
16. Priotta M, Gunn J, Farish S, Karabatsos G. Primer postcard improves postal survey response rates. Aust N Z J Public Health 1999;23:196-7.
17. Dommeyer CJ, Elganyan D, Umans C. Increasing mail survey response with an envelope teaser. J Mark Res Soc 1991;33:137-40.
18. Shiono PH, Klebanoff MA. The effect of two mailing strategies on the response to a survey of physicians. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134: 539-42.
19. Streiff MB, Dundes L, Spivak JL. A mail survey of United States hae-matologists and oncologists: a comparison of business reply versus stamped return envelopes. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:430-2.
20. 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;46:455-9.
21. Roberts I, Coggan C, Fanslow J. Epidemiological methods: the effect of envelope type on response rates in an epidemiological study of back pain. Aust N Z J Occ Health Safety 1994;10:55-7.
22. McCoy M, Hargie O. Effects of personalization and envelope colour on response rates, speed and quality among a business population. Indus Mark Manage 2007;36:799-809.
23. Taylor KS, Counsell CE, Harris CE, Gordon JC, Fonesca SC, Lee AJ. In a randomized study of envelope and ink color, colored ink was found to increase the response rate to a postal questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1326-30.
24. Gattellari M, Worthington JM, Zwar NA, Middleton SM. Barriers to the use of anticoagulation for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a representative survey of Australian family physicians. Stroke 2008;39:227-30.
25. Gattellari M, Worthington JM, Zwar NA, Middleton SM. The management of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Australian, general practice: bridging the evidence-practice gap. A national, needs assessment survey. BMC Fam Pract 2008;9:62.
26. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas (SEIFA) Technical Paper (ABS cat. no. 2039.0.55.001, 2006). Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@nsf/mf/2039.0.55.001. Accessed February 7, 2011.
27. Measuring remoteness: Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA). Revised edition. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, 2001. (Occasional papers: New Series No. 14.). Available at http://www.health. gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-historicpubs-hfsocc- ocpanew14a.htm. Accessed February 7, 2011.
28. SPSS for Windows, Rel. 18.0.2. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.; 2010.
29. SAS Software, Version 9.2, of the SAS System for Windows © 2002-2008. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
30. Ogborne AC, Rush B, Fondacaro R. Dealing with nonrespondents in a mail survey of professionals: the cost-effectiveness of two alternatives. Eval Health Prof 1986;9:121-8.
31. Bonevski B, Magin P, Horton G, Foster M, Girgis A. Response rates in GP surveysdtrialling two recruitment strategies. Aust Fam Physician 2011;40:427-30.