ArticleEvaluation & the health professions2021
The Effect of the Familiarity of a Survey Sender on Response Outcomes in a Large-Scale Survey of Emergency Medical Services Agencies.
Article in Evaluation & the health professions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of Trust in Text Messaging for Promoting Patient Portal Activation Among Low-Income Patients: Quality Improvement Project.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Survey response is higher when the request comes from a familiar entity compared to an unknown sender. Little is known about how sender influences response to surveys of organizations. We assessed whether familiarity of the sender influences response outcomes in a survey of emergency medical services agencies. Emergency medical services agencies in one U.S. state were randomly assigned to receive survey emails from either a familiar or unfamiliar sender. Both deployment approaches were subsequently used nationwide, with each state selecting one of the two contact methods. Experimental results showed that requests from the familiar sender achieved higher survey response (54.3%) compared to requests from the unfamiliar sender (36.9%; OR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.23, 3.33). Similar results were observed in the subsequent nationwide survey; in states where the familiar sender deployed the survey, 62.0% of agencies responded, compared to 51.0% when the survey was sent by the unfamiliar sender (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.47, 1.67). The response difference resulted in nearly 60 additional hours of staff time needed to perform telephone follow-up to nonrespondents. When surveying healthcare organizations, surveyors should recognize that it is more challenging to obtain responses without a pre-established relationship with the organizations.
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.