Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26755526›Full record

ArticleEvaluation & the health professions2017

Survey Methods to Optimize Response Rate in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Ellen Funkhouser, Kavya Vellala, Camille Baltuck, Rita Cacciato, Emily Durand, Deborah McEdward, Ellen Sowell, Sarah E Theisen, Gregg H Gilbert, National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evaluation & the health professions, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Methods and lessons from conducting a national study of primary care nurse practitioners.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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

10 authors.

Ellen Funkhouser1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Kavya Vellala2 Westat, Rockville, MD, USA.
Camille Baltuck3 University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Rita Cacciato4 University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.
Emily Durand5 HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Deborah McEdward6 College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Ellen Sowell1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Sarah E Theisen7 University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Gregg H Gilbert1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

The National Dental PBRNU19DE022516 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GILBERT, GREGG H · 2012 to 2018
$66.4M
NIDCR NIH HHS U19 DE022516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surveys of health professionals typically have low response rates, and these rates have been decreasing in the recent years. We report on the methods used in a successful survey of dentist members of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. The objectives were to quantify the (1) increase in response rate associated with successive survey methods, (2) time to completion with each successive step, (3) contribution from the final method and personal contact, and (4) differences in response rate and mode of response by practice/practitioner characteristics. Dentist members of the network were mailed an invitation describing the study. Subsequently, up to six recruitment steps were followed: initial e-mail, two e-mail reminders at 2-week intervals, a third e-mail reminder with postal mailing a paper questionnaire, a second postal mailing of paper questionnaire, and staff follow-up. Of the 1,876 invited, 160 were deemed ineligible and 1,488 (87% of 1,716 eligible) completed the survey. Completion by step: initial e-mail, 35%; second e-mail, 15%; third e-mail, 7%; fourth e-mail/first paper, 11%; second paper, 15%; and staff follow-up, 16%. Overall, 76% completed the survey online and 24% on paper. Completion rates increased in absolute numbers and proportionally with later methods of recruitment. Participation rates varied little by practice/practitioner characteristics. Completion on paper was more likely by older dentists. Multiple methods of recruitment resulted in a high participation rate: Each step and method produced incremental increases with the final step producing the largest increase.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesDentistsElectronic MailHumansPostal ServiceTime Factorsdentistshealth professionsonline surveysparticipation ratesresponse ratessurvey methods

Identifiers

PMID26755526
PMCPMC5002250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.