ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015
Managing an online survey about influenza vaccination in primary healthcare workers.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Participation Rates in 11 National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Surveys 2014-2022.Evaluation & the health professions · 2025Article
- Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Randomized Response Approach in Public Health Research: An Empirical Study on the Factors of Illegal Waste Disposal.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Survey Methods to Optimize Response Rate in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Evaluation & the health professions · 2017Article
- Translation, adaptation and validation the contents of the Diabetes Medical Management Plan for the Brazilian context.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online surveys are increasingly used due to their speed and efficiency. The aim of this study was to analyze factors that may have contributed to the quality and speed of response of an online survey on influenza vaccination in primary healthcare workers. A multicenter study including family physicians, nurses and pediatricians from primary healthcare teams from seven Spanish Autonomous Communities was designed. The centers were selected by simple random sampling. The survey remained active and accessible for 56 days and four reminders were sent. The odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the association of sociodemographic variables and responding to the survey before the second reminder. Complete, validated information was obtained from 1965 primary healthcare workers. The total response rate was 36.2%. More nurses (46.3%) responded before the second reminder and more family physicians (52.8%) after the second reminder. The adjusted OR shows that family physicians responded later (AOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.2-1.8) than nurses. The responses obtained in the first 24 h after the initial sending and the reminders accounted for 41.7% of the completed surveys, indicating the importance of reminders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.