4.7 Review

Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 106, 期 6, 页码 1021-1026

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.28

关键词

surveys; response rates; health services research; oncology

类别

资金

  1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta GA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the physician survey has become an important tool for oncology-focused health services research, such surveys often achieve low response rates. This mini-review reports the results of a structured review of the literature relating to increasing response rates for physician surveys, as well as our own experience from a survey of physicians as to their referral practices for suspected haematologic malignancy in the United States. PubMed and PsychINFO databases were used to identify methodological articles assessing factors that influence response rates for physician surveys; the results were tabulated and reviewed for trends. We also analysed the impact of a follow-up telephone call by a physician investigator to initial non-responders in our own mailed physician survey, comparing the characteristics of those who responded before vs after the call. The systematic review suggested that monetary incentives and paper (vs web or email) surveys increase response rates. In our own survey, follow-up telephone calls increased the response rate from 43.7% to 70.5%, with little discernible difference in the characteristics of early vs later responders. We conclude that in addition to monetary incentives and paper surveys, physician-to-physician follow-up telephone calls are an effective method to increase response rates in oncology-focused physician surveys. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 1021-1026. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.28 www.bjcancer.com Published online 28 February 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据