Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29925324›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Comparison of response rates on invitation mode of a web-based survey on influenza vaccine adverse events among healthcare workers: a pilot study.

Xiaochen Tai, Alanna M Smith, Allison J McGeer, Eve Dubé, Dorothy Linn Holness, Kevin Katz, Linda McGillis Hall, Shelly A McNeil, Jeff Powis, Brenda L Coleman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Botulinum Toxin Treatment in Pregnant Laryngeal Dystonia Patients: Case Series and Survey of Current Practice of Canadian Laryngologists.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
    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.

Xiaochen TaiSinai Health System, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Alanna M SmithSinai Health System, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Allison J McGeerSinai Health System, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Eve DubéNational Public Health Institute of Quebec, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Dorothy Linn HolnessUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kevin KatzUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Linda McGillis HallUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shelly A McNeilDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Jeff PowisMichael Garron Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Brenda L ColemanSinai Health System, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. b.coleman@utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7144-4827

Funding

CIHR 14082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based surveys have become increasingly popular but response rates are low and may be prone to selection bias. How people are invited to participate may impact response rates and needs further study as previous evidence is contradictory. The purpose of this study was to determine whether response to a web-based survey of healthcare workers would be higher with a posted or an emailed invitation. We also report results of the pilot study, which aims to estimate the percentage of adults vaccinated against influenza who report recurrent systemic adverse events (the same systemic adverse event occurring successively following receipt of influenza vaccines).

methodsThe pilot study was conducted in November 2016 in Toronto, Canada. Members of a registry of adults (18 years and older and predominantly healthcare workers) who volunteered to receive information regarding future studies about influenza were randomly assigned to receive either an email or postal invitation to complete a web-based survey regarding influenza vaccinations. Non-respondents received one reminder using the same mode of contact as their original invitation.

resultsThe overall response rate was higher for those sent the invitation by email (34.8%) than by post (25.8%; p < 0.001) and for older versus younger participants (p

conclusionsIn this convenience sample of registry volunteers, response rates were generally low, but were higher for the emailed than posted invitations and for older than younger adults.

Indexed as

InternetSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsVaccinationYoung AdultInfluenza VaccinesEmail invitationInfluenzaInvitation modePostal invitationResponse rateWeb-based survey

Identifiers

PMID29925324
PMCPMC6011252

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.