Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26475715›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2015

Mail merge can be used to create personalized questionnaires in complex surveys.

Monica Taljaard, Shazia Hira Chaudhry, Jamie C Brehaut, Charles Weijer, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Civic Campus, Admin Services Building, C409, ASB 2-004, Civic Box 693, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. mtaljaard@ohri.ca.
Shazia Hira ChaudhryDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. schau082@uottawa.ca.
Jamie C BrehautDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. jbrehaut@ohri.ca.
Charles WeijerRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada. cweijer@uwo.ca.
Jeremy M GrimshawRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada. jgrimshaw@ohri.ca.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP85066Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP89790
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow response rates and inadequate question comprehension threaten the validity of survey results. We describe a simple procedure to implement personalized-as opposed to generically worded-questionnaires in the context of a complex web-based survey of corresponding authors of a random sample of 300 published cluster randomized trials. The purpose of the survey was to gather more detailed information about informed consent procedures used in the trial, over and above basic information provided in the trial report. We describe our approach-which allowed extensive personalization without the need for specialized computer technology-and discuss its potential application in similar settings.

resultsThe mail merge feature of standard word processing software was used to generate unique, personalized questionnaires for each author by incorporating specific information from the article, including naming the randomization unit (e.g., family practice, school, worksite), and identifying specific individuals who may have been considered research participants at the cluster level (family doctors, teachers, employers) and individual level (patients, students, employees) in questions regarding informed consent procedures in the trial. The response rate was relatively high (64%, 182/285) and did not vary significantly by author, publication, or study characteristics. The refusal rate was low (7%).

conclusionWhile controlled studies are required to examine the specific effects of our approach on comprehension, quality of responses, and response rates, we showed how mail merge can be used as a simple but useful tool to add personalized fields to complex survey questionnaires, or to request additional information required from study authors. One potential application is in eliciting specific information about published articles from study authors when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesComprehensionData CollectionHumansInformed ConsentPersonally Identifiable InformationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWord Processing

Identifiers

PMID26475715
PMCPMC4608177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.