4.2 Article

Participation and factors associated with late or non-response to an online survey in primary care

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 688-693

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jep.12367

关键词

bias; health professionals; health care survey; online system; reminder system; response rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale, aims and objectivesOnline surveys have several advantages, but a low response rate is common and it is uncertain how results are affected. Response inducement techniques can be used to overcome this problem. The objectives of this study were to describe the percentage of change in the response rate after reminders and to analyse the characteristics associated with non-response and late response based on the survey results, as well as by applying archival and extrapolation techniques. MethodIn the Autonomous Community of Madrid, an online questionnaire about cancer prevention was sent to a random sample of primary care health professionals (3586 physicians and nurses). Two reminders were sent later. The percentage of change in response rates after reminders, global and by demographic and health care characteristics of participants; and factors associated with non-response and late response were analysed using response rates and odds ratios (ORs). ResultsAfter the reminders, the response rate increased from 22.6% to 32.9% and to 39.4%. Non-response was associated with age [OR: 3.14; confidence interval (CI) 95%: 2.23-4.42 for aged >60 years], gender and functional area. Further, a higher response rate after reminders was observed in professionals with heavier workloads (OR: 1.46; CI 95%: 1.08-1.97) and in those who stated a lower relevance of cancer prevention in primary care. ConclusionsAfter electronic reminders, the response rate increased, especially among professionals with the highest workloads and a minor interest in the survey topic. However, possible bias associated with non-response remains and the factors behind this should be examined in future research.

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

4.2
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