Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17489911›Full record

Trial reportHealth services research2007

Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians.

Timothy J Beebe, G Richard Locke, Sunni A Barnes, Michael E Davern, Kari J Anderson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health services research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Timothy J BeebeMayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
G Richard Locke
Sunni A Barnes
Michael E Davern
Kari J Anderson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effects of two different mixed-mode (mail and web survey) combinations on response rates, response times, and nonresponse bias in a sample of primary care and specialty internal medicine physicians. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingPrimary data were collected from 500 physicians with an appointment in the Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine (DOM) between February and March 2005. STUDY

designPhysicians were randomly assigned to receive either an initial mailed survey evaluating the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) with a web survey follow-up to nonrespondents or its converse-an initial web survey followed by a mailed survey to nonrespondents. Response rates for each condition were calculated using standard formula. Response times were determined as well. Nonresponse bias was measured by comparing selected characteristics of survey respondents to similar characteristics in the full sample frame. In addition, the distributions of results on key outcome variables were compared overall and by data collection condition and phase. PRINCIPAL

findingsOverall response rates were somewhat higher in the mail/web condition (70.5 percent) than in the web/mail condition (62.9 percent); differences were more pronounced before the mode switch prior to the mailing to nonrespondents. Median response time was 2 days faster in the web/mail condition than in the mail/web (median=5 and 7 days, respectively) but there was evidence of under-representation of specialist physicians and those who used the EMR a half a day or less each day in the web/mail condition before introduction of the mailed component. This did not translate into significant inconsistencies or differences in the distributions of key outcome variables, however.

conclusionsA methodology that uses an initial mailing of a self-administered form followed by a web survey to nonrespondents provides slightly higher response rates and a more representative sample than one that starts with web and ends with a mailed survey. However, if the length of the data collection period is limited and rapid response is important, perhaps the web survey followed by a mailed questionnaire is to be preferred. Key outcome variables appear to be unaffected by the data collection method.

Indexed as

Internal MedicineInternetPostal ServicePrimary Health CareAdultBiasFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedMiddle AgedMinnesotaPhysiciansResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID17489911
PMCPMC1955260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.