» Articles » PMID: 22374464

Increasing Response Rates from Physicians in Oncology Research: a Structured Literature Review and Data from a Recent Physician Survey

Overview
Journal Br J Cancer
Specialty Oncology
Date 2012 Mar 1
PMID 22374464
Citations 36
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Evaluating strategies to recruit health researchers to participate in online survey research.

Stevens E, Cleland C, Shunk A, El Shahawy O BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024; 24(1):153.

PMID: 39026149 PMC: 11256559. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02275-6.


Participation Rates in 11 National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Surveys 2014-2022.

Funkhouser E, Mungia R, Laws R, Nyongesa D, Gillespie S, Leo M Eval Health Prof. 2024; :1632787241259186.

PMID: 38843535 PMC: 11829272. DOI: 10.1177/01632787241259186.


Extrapolation errors in Liu et al.'s CAM integrative review of health care professionals in New Zealand.

McDowell J, Kohut S, Betts D BMC Complement Med Ther. 2024; 24(1):187.

PMID: 38741124 PMC: 11092029. DOI: 10.1186/s12906-023-04259-3.


Perspectives of Oncologists on the Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Care.

Hantel A, Walsh T, Marron J, Kehl K, Sharp R, Van Allen E JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(3):e244077.

PMID: 38546644 PMC: 10979310. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4077.


"Current training" in Cardiac devices - a Cardiology trainee perspective: a questionnaire survey.

Jonathan Lee C, Rao A MedEdPublish (2016). 2024; 6:130.

PMID: 38406457 PMC: 10885280. DOI: 10.15694/mep.2017.000130.


References
1.
Cull W, OConnor K, Sharp S, Tang S . Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians. Health Serv Res. 2005; 40(1):213-26. PMC: 1361134. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00350.x. View

2.
Heywood A, Mudge P, Ring I, Sanson-Fisher R . Reducing systematic bias in studies of general practitioners: the use of a medical peer in the recruitment of general practitioners in research. Fam Pract. 1995; 12(2):227-31. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/12.2.227. View

3.
Moses S, Clark T . Effect of prize draw incentive on the response rate to a postal survey of obstetricians and gynaecologists: a randomised controlled trial. [ISRCTN32823119]. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004; 4(1):14. PMC: 449720. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-14. View

4.
Grava-Gubins I, Scott S . Effects of various methodologic strategies: survey response rates among Canadian physicians and physicians-in-training. Can Fam Physician. 2008; 54(10):1424-30. PMC: 2567275. View

5.
Baron G, De Wals P, Milord F . Cost-effectiveness of a lottery for increasing physicians' responses to a mail survey. Eval Health Prof. 2001; 24(1):47-52. DOI: 10.1177/01632780122034777. View