4.7 Article

Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians

Journal

PEDIATRICS
Volume 111, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.111.4.e299

Keywords

Internet; fax; postal mail; computer communication networks; survey; pediatrician; rotavirus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To compare 3 communication modes ( postal, fax, and e-mail) in a rotavirus vaccine physician survey. Methods. We used 3 communication modes to distribute a survey to physicians listed in the membership directory of the Georgia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The directory listed 1391 members; however, 404 were deemed ineligible on the basis of their listing as a specialist, retiree, resident in training, or government public health employee. Of the 987 members expected to administer vaccines, 150 were selected randomly to receive the postal survey ( postal group). Of the remaining listings, 488 (58%) of 837 listed a fax number; 150 members were selected randomly and faxed a survey ( fax group). Of the remaining members, 266 (39%) of 687 had e-mail addresses listed; 150 members were selected randomly for the e-mail survey (e-mail group). A follow-up survey was sent by the same mode at 2 weeks. A final survey was sent via another mode ( mixed mode) at 1 month: by fax to e-mail and postal nonresponders and by post to fax nonresponders and those without fax. Results. Eligible respondents in the 3 survey groups were similar in their practice setting and location. Although the e-mail group had fewer median years ( 8 years) since medical school graduation than the fax group ( 19 years) and postal group ( 17 years), a similar percentage of responders in all groups had computers (> 85%) and Internet access (> 70%) at work. However, only 39% of members listed an e-mail address in the directory. In the 2 weeks after the first mailing, 39 surveys were completed via postal mail, 50 via fax, and 16 via e-mail. In the 2 weeks after the second contact ( sent at 2 weeks), 20 surveys were completed via postal mail, 15 via fax, and 17 via e-mail. The response rate after the first 2 mailings was 41% (59 of 143) for postal, 47% (65 of 137) for fax, and 26% ( 33 of 125) for e-mail surveys. The third and final survey ( sent 1 month after the first mailing) was sent by a different (ie, mixed) mode and elicited an additional 73 responses: 19 responses ( 15 postal, 4 fax) from the postal group, 19 responses (18 postal, 1 fax) from the fax group, and 35 responses (15 postal, 13 fax, 7 e-mail) from the e-mail group. Twenty-three percent (9 of 40) of the e-mail and 18% (15 of 83) of the fax surveys completed were returned on the same or subsequent day they were sent, compared with none of the postal surveys. There were significant differences among the 3 groups for invalid addresses/numbers (4% postal, 8% fax, and 16% e-mail) listed in the directory. Using mixed modes as the third contact, the overall response rate increased from 39% before mixed mode to a final of 53%. On the basis of the 3 initial groups, responses to 1 of 12 rotavirus questions differed significantly. Conclusions. Future use of e-mail surveys in selected circumstances is promising, because the majority of providers have Internet access and acknowledged interest in participating in e-mail surveys. E-mail surveys could be especially useful if rapid response time is necessary. There were fewer incomplete questions by participants who completed the e-mail survey compared with postal or fax participants. Updating membership e-mail addresses and routinely using e-mail as a communication tool should improve the ability to use e-mail surveys. There may need to be ongoing evaluations that critically evaluate providers' responses to e-mail surveys compared with other survey modes before e-mail surveys can become a standard survey tool. In the meantime, mixed-mode surveys may be an option.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available