Reporting Practices and Methodological Challenges in Anesthesiology Program Director Surveys: A Scoping Review.

Background: Survey research is widely used in anesthesiology education, yet response rates among program directors (PDs) remain variable and difficult to interpret. Inconsistent reporting of survey methods may limit meaningful comparisons and hinder methodological advancement. This scoping review examined response rate patterns and reporting practices in surveys targeting anesthesiology PDs. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to map evidence and identify gaps in survey methodology. Seven databases were searched for surveys of US anesthesiology PDs, yielding 436 citations screened by 2 reviewers. Data extraction included study characteristics, methodology, and response rates. Quality was assessed with a 12-point framework of survey development, design, implementation, and bias consideration. Results: Thirty-six studies were included with response rates ranging from 19% to 82% (mean 48.3%). Fellowships averaged 56.6% versus residencies 42.4%. Average rates by platform were Google Forms 64.8%, REDCap 51.0%, SurveyMonkey 51.0%, and Qualtrics 44.3%. Studies with 3 reminders averaged 60.3%, and those with 4 or more averaged 48.9%. Among topics, simulation achieved the highest average response rate (57.6%). Survey instruments were unavailable in 41.7% of studies. Quality ratings were high in 13.9%, moderate in 52.8%, and low or very low in 33.3%. Conclusions: Through analysis of key design considerations, this review highlights variability in reporting practices and methodological transparency across anesthesiology PD surveys. Methodological features such as survey platform, reminders, and topic varied across studies, but inconsistent reporting limited interpretation of the implications of these methodological choices. Future work should prioritize consistent reporting standards and prospective controlled studies to better inform survey design in anesthesiology education.