Prospective evaluation of direct approach with a tablet device as a strategy to enhance survey study participant response rate

BMC Research Notes

Sara Urbanski¹  Asmaa Manan¹  Melissa J Parker² 

[1] Division of Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster Children’s Hospital and McMaster University, 1200 Main St W. Room 3A, Hamilton, Toronto, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada;Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children and The University of Toronto, 1200 Main St W. Room 3A, Hamilton, Toronto, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada

关键词: Bias (epidemiology);    Handheld;    Computers;    Data collection;    Research design;   

Others  :  1165331
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-5-605

 received in 2012-07-04, accepted in 2012-10-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Investigators conduct survey studies for a variety of reasons. Poor participant response rates are common, however, and may limit the generalizability and utility of results. The objective of this study was to determine whether direct approach with a tablet device enhances survey study participant response rate and to assess participants’ experiences with this mode of survey administration.

Findings

An interventional study nested within a single center survey study was conducted at McMaster Children’s Hospital. The primary outcome was the ability to achieve of a survey study response rate of 70% or greater. Eligible participants received 3 email invitations (Week 0, 2, 4) to complete a web-based (Survey Monkey) survey. The study protocol included plans for a two-week follow-up phase (Phase 2) where non-responders were approached by a research assistant and invited to complete an iPad-based version of the survey. The Phase 1 response rate was 48.7% (56/115). Phase 2 effectively recruited reluctant responders, increasing the overall response rate to 72.2% (83/115). On a 7-point Likert scale, reluctant responders highly rated their enjoyment (mean 6.0, sd 0.83 [95% CI: 5.7-6.3]) and ease of use (mean 6.7, sd 0.47 [95% CI: 6.5-6.9]) completing the survey using the iPad. Reasons endorsed for Phase 2 participation included: direct approach (81%), immediate survey access (62%), and the novelty of completing a tablet-based survey (54%). Most reluctant responders (89%) indicated that a tablet-based survey is their preferred method of survey completion.

Conclusions

Use of a tablet-based version of the survey was effective in recruiting reluctant responders and this group reported positive experiences with this mode of survey administration.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Parker et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dilman D: Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. Wiley-Interscience, New York; 1978.
• [2]Burns KE, Duffett M, Kho ME, Meade MO, Adhikari NK, Sinuff T, Cook DJ: A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ 2008, 179(3):245-252.
• [3]Henry R, Zivick J: Principles of survey research. Fam Pract Res J 1986, 5(3):145-157.
• [4]Rubenfeld G: Surveys: an introduction. Respir Care 2004, 49(10):1181-1185.
• [5]McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practices applicable to surveys of health care staff and patients. Health Technol Assess 2001, 5(31):1-256.
• [6]Etter J, Perneger T: Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50(10):1123-1128.
• [7]Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I: Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002, 324:1183-1191.
• [8]Dilman D: Mail and internet surveys: The total design method. 2nd edition. Wiley, New York; 2007.
• [9]Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix L, Pratap S: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, (3):Art. No.: MR000008. pub4
• [10]Ziegenfuss JY, Burmeister K, James K, Haas L, Tilburt J, Beebe TJ: Getting physicians to open the survey: Little evidence that an envelope teaser increases response rates. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12(1):41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Olsen F, Abelsen B, Olsen JA: Improving response rate and quality of survey data with a scratch lottery ticket incentive. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12(1):52. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. 2nd edition. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Canada; 2011. [Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada]
• [13]Interactive Statistics page: 2-way contingency table analysis. http://statpages.org/ctab2x2.html webcite
• [14]Groves R: Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q 2006, 70(5):646-675.
• [15]Asch D, Jedrziewski M, Christakis N: Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50(10):1129-1136.
• [16]Grava-Gubins I, Scott S: Effect of various methodologic strategies. Can Fam Physician 2008, 54:1424-1430.
• [17]Thorpe C, Ryan B, McLean SL, Burt A, Stewart M, Brown JB, Reid GJ, Harris S: How to obtain excellent response rates when surveying physicians. Fam Pract 2009, 26(1):65-68.
• [18]VanGeest J, Johnson T, Welch V: Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof 2007, 30(4):303-321.
• [19]Onono MA, Carraher N, Cohen RC, Bukusi EA, Turan JM: Use of personal digital assistants for data collection in a multi-site AIDS stigma study in rural south Nyanza, Kenya. Afr Health Sci 2011, 11(3):464-473.
• [20]Kelly GC, Hii J, Batarii W, Donald W, Hale E, Nausien J, Pontifex S, Vallely A, Tanner M, Clements A: Modern geographical reconnaissance of target populations in malaria elimination zones. Malar J 2010, 9:289. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Yu P, de Courten M, Pan E, Galea G, Pryor J: The development and evaluation of a PDA-based method for public health surveillance data collection in developing countries. Int J Med Inform 2009, 78(8):532-542.
• [22]Byass P, Hounton S, Ouedraogo M, Some H, Diallo I, Fottrell E, Emmelin A, Meda N: Direct data capture using hand-held computers in rural Burkina Faso: experiences, benefits and lessons learnt. Trop Med Int Health 2008, 13(Suppl 1):25-30.
• [23]Acosta JA, Hatzigeorgiou C, Smith LS: Developing a trauma registry in a forward deployed military hospital: Preliminary report. J Trauma 2006, 61(2):256-260.
• [24]Vanden Eng JL, Wolkon A, Frolov AS, Terlouw DJ, Eliades MJ, Morgah K, Takpa V, Dare A, Sodahlon YK, Doumanou Y, et al.: Use of handheld computers with global positioning systems for probability sampling and data entry in household surveys. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007, 77(2):393-399.
• [25]Luckmann R, Vidal A: Design of a handheld electronic pain, treatment and activity diary. J Biomed Inform 2010, 43(5 Suppl):S32-36.
• [26]Bray P, Bundy AC, Ryan MM, North KN: Feasibility of a computerized method to measure quality of “everyday” life in children with neuromuscular disorders. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2010, 30(1):43-53.
• [27]Langan SM, Williams HC: The use of electronic diaries in dermatology research. Dermatology 2009, 218(4):344-346.
• [28]Marceau LD, Link C, Jamison RN, Carolan S: Electronic diaries as a tool to improve pain management: is there any evidence? Pain Med 2007, 8(Suppl 3):S101-109.
• [29]Hlady CS, Severson MA, Segre AM, Polgreen PM: A mobile handheld computing application for recording hand hygiene observations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010, 31(9):975-977.
• [30]Tejani N, Dresselhaus TR, Weinger MB: Development of a hand-held computer platform for real-time behavioral assessment of physicians and nurses. J Biomed Inform 2010, 43(1):75-80.
• [31]Guryan J, Jacob B, Klopfer E, Groff J: Using technology to explore social networks and mechanisms underlying peer effects in classrooms. Dev Psychol 2008, 44(2):355-364.
• [32]Asaro PV: Synchronized time-motion study in the emergency department using a handheld computer application. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004, 107(Pt 1):701-705.
• [33]Fu Q, Xue Z, Zhu J, Fors U, Klein G: Anaesthesia record system on handheld computers–pilot experience and uses for quality control and clinical guidelines. Comput Methods Programs in Biomed 2005, 77(2):155-163.
• [34]Benson K: Electronic Data Collection Tools for Quality Improvement: Antibiotic Utilization Project. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003, 2003:788. PMCID: PMC1480294
• [35]Blaya JA, Gomez W, Rodriguez P, Fraser H: Cost and implementation analysis of a personal digital assistant system for laboratory data collection. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2008, 12(8):921-927.
• [36]Bernabe-Ortiz A, Curioso WH, Gonzales MA, Evangelista W, Castagnetto JM, Carcamo CP, Hughes JP, Garcia PJ, Garnett GP, Holmes KK: Handheld computers for self-administered sensitive data collection: a comparative study in Peru. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008, 8:11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S: Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 2008, 11(2):322-333.
• [38]Fletcher LA, Erickson DJ, Toomey TL, Wagenaar AC: Handheld computers. A feasible alternative to paper forms for field data collection. Eval Rev 2003, 27(2):165-178.
• [39]Galliher JM, Stewart TV, Pathak PK, Werner JJ, Dickinson LM, Hickner JM: Data collection outcomes comparing paper forms with PDA forms in an office-based patient survey. Ann Fam Med 2008, 6(2):154-160.
• [40]Rubin DB: Inference and missing data. Biometrika 1976, 63(3):581-592.
• [41]Schafer JL, Graham JW: Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 2002, 7(2):147-177.
• [42]Egleston BL, Miller SM, Meropol NJ: The impact of misclassification due to survey response fatigue on estimation and identifiability of treatment effects. Stat Med 2011, 30(30):3560-3572.