4.6 Article

Questionnaire order significantly increased response to a postal survey sent to primary care physicians

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 177-185

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.012

Keywords

response rate; factorial trial; questionnaire order; precontact; physicians; general practitioner; PSA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Primary care physicians are increasingly being asked to participate in postal surveys. Difficulties in achieving adequate response rates among physicians have been reported. We investigated the effect of two low-cost interventions on response to a primary care physician postal questionnaire. Study Design and Setting: A 2 x 2 factorial trial was developed within the context of a national survey assessing views and practices of physicians regarding prostate-specific antigen testing. We evaluated questionnaire order (version 1: demographics first, version 2: topic-specific questions first) and written precontact. A national database of primary care physicians was compiled. One thousand five hundred ninety-nine physicians were randomly selected, stratified by health board, and randomized. Results: 47.9% of eligible physicians completed a questionnaire. There was a statistically significant 5.1% higher response rate among physicians receiving version I of the questionnaire than those receiving version 2 (50.6% vs. 45.4%, P = 0.05); the adjusted odds of response were significantly raised (odds ratio = 1.24; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.54). Precontact resulted in a nonsignificant 3.6% increase in response (49.8% vs. 46.2%; P = 0.16). The interventions did not interact. Conclusion: Ordering questionnaires with general questions first can significantly increase response rates, whereas precontact can achieve a modest increase. These strategies may enhance response while adding little to the cost of a physician survey. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available