Trial reportHealth services research2018
Combining Internet-Based and Postal Survey Methods in a Survey among Gynecologists: Results of a Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Testing the Impact of Mixed-Mode Designs (Mail and Web) and Multiple Contact Attempts within Mode (Mail or Web) on Clinician Survey Response.Health services research · 2018Trial
- Psychological, psychiatric, and behavioral sciences measurement scales: best practice guidelines for their development and validation.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Real and Perceived Discordance in Physicians and U.S. Adults' Beliefs Regarding the Causes and Controllability of Type 2 Diabetes.Health communication · 2022Article
- Definition, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Kidney Injury: An International Survey of Nephrologists.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether a combination of Internet-based and postal survey methods (mixed-mode) compared to postal-only survey methods (postal-only) leads to improved response rates in a physician survey, and to compare the cost implications of the different recruitment strategies. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
settingAll primary care gynecologists in Bremen and Lower Saxony, Germany, were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey from January to July 2014. STUDY
designThe sample was divided into two strata (A; B) depending on availability of an email address. Within each stratum, potential participants were randomly assigned to mixed-mode or postal-only group. PRINCIPAL
findingsIn Stratum A, the mixed-mode group had a lower response rate compared to the postal-only group (12.5 vs. 20.2 percent; RR = 0.61, 95 percent CI: 0.44-0.87). In stratum B, no significant differences were found (15.6 vs. 16.2 percent; RR = 0.95, 95 percent CI: 0.62-1.44). Total costs (in €) per valid questionnaire returned (Stratum A: 399.72 vs. 248.85; Stratum B: 496.37 vs. 455.15) and per percentage point of response (Stratum A: 1,379.02 vs. 861.02; Stratum B 1,116.82 vs. 1,024.09) were higher, whereas variable costs were lower in mixed-mode compared to the respective postal-only groups (Stratum A cost ratio: 0.47, Stratum B cost ratio: 0.71).
conclusionsIn this study, primary care gynecologists were more likely to participate by traditional postal-only than by mixed-mode survey methods that first offered an Internet option. However, the lower response rate for the mixed-mode method may be partly due to the older age structure of the responding gynecologists. Variable costs per returned questionnaire were substantially lower in mixed-mode groups and indicate the potential for cost savings if the sample population is sufficiently large.
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.