Trial reportBMJ open2020
Patient-reported experiences with general practitioners: a randomised study of mail and web-based approaches following a national survey.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Response is increased using postal rather than electronic questionnaires - new results from an updated Cochrane Systematic Review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome and experience measures in primary care: a scoping review of systematic collection and use.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Dutch dentists' involvement in orthodontic retention: monitoring, opinions, competence and communication gaps.European journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Cross Sectional Survey of Antenatal Educators' Views About Current Antenatal Education Provision.Maternal and child health journal · 2024Article
- Usability of an Automated System for Real-Time Monitoring of Shared Decision-Making for Surgery: Mixed Methods Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Emotional regulation and self-perceived quality of life in high-performance mountain sports athletes.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Patient perspective on living with mild hemophilia in Germany: results from a nationwide survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Patient experiences with general practitioners: psychometric performance of the generic PEQ-GP instrument among patients with chronic conditions.Family practice · 2022Article
- ASK ME!-Routine measurement of patient experience with patient safety in ambulatory care: A mixed-mode survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- Impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on bariatric care in Poland: results of national survey.BMC surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe standard data-collection procedure in the Norwegian national patient experience survey programme is post-discharge mail surveys, which include a pen-and-paper questionnaire with the option to answer electronically. A purely electronic protocol has not previously been explored in Norway. The aim of this study was to compare response rates, background characteristics, data quality and main study results for a survey of patient experiences with general practitioners (GPs) administered by the standard mail data-collection procedure and a web-based approach.
designCross-sectional survey.
settingGP offices in Norway.
participantsThe sample consisted of 6999 patients aged 16 years and older registered with a GP in November 2018.
interventionBased on a three-stage sampling design, 6999 patients of GPs aged 16 or older were randomised to one of two survey administration protocols: Group A, who were mailed an invitation with both a pen-and-paper including an electronic response option (n=4999) and Group B, who received an email invitation with electronic response option (n=2000).
main outcome measuresResponse rates, background characteristics, data quality and main study results.
resultsThe response rate was markedly higher for the mail survey (42.6%) than for the web-based survey (18.3%). A few of the background variables differed significantly between the two groups, but the data quality and patient-reported experiences were similar.
conclusionsWeb-based surveys are faster and less expensive than standard mail surveys, but their low response rates and coverage problems threaten their usefulness and legitimacy. Initiatives to increase response rates for web-based data collection and strategies for tailoring data collection to different groups should be key elements in future research.
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.