Getting physicians to open the survey: little evidence that an envelope teaser increases response rates

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Timothy J Beebe¹  Jon C Tilburt¹  Lindsey Haas¹  Katherine M James¹  Kelly Burmeister³  Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss² 

[1] Mayo Clinic 200 First Street Southwest Rochester, Minnesota, 55905, USA;Health Care Policy & Research - Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA;Children's Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA

关键词: Physician surveys;    Response rates;    Survey methods;   

Others  :  1136734
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-41

 received in 2011-11-08, accepted in 2012-03-31,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Physician surveys are an important tool to assess attitudes, beliefs and self-reported behaviors of this policy relevant group. In order for a physician to respond to a mailed survey, they must first open the envelope. While there is some evidence that package elements can impact physician response rates, the impact of an envelope teaser is unknown. Here we assess this by testing the impact of adding a brightly colored "$25 incentive" sticker to the outside of an envelope on response rates and nonresponse bias in a survey of physicians.

Methods

In the second mailing of a survey assessing physicians' moral beliefs and views on controversial health care topics, initial nonrespondents were randomly assigned to receive a survey in an envelope with a colored "$25 incentive" sticker (teaser group) or an envelope without a sticker (control group). Response rates were compared between the teaser and control groups overall and by age, gender, region of the United States, specialty and years in practice. Nonresponse bias was assessed by comparing the demographic composition of the respondents to the nonrespondents in the experimental and control condition.

Results

No significant differences in response rates were observed between the experimental and control conditions overall (p = 0.38) or after stratifying by age, gender, region, or practice type. Within the teaser condition, there was some variation in response rate by years since graduation. There was no independent effect of the teaser on response when simultaneously controlling for demographic characteristics (OR = 0.875, p = 0.4112).

Conclusions

Neither response rates nor nonresponse bias were impacted by the use of an envelope teaser in a survey of physicians in the United States.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Ziegenfuss et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kellerman SE, Herold J: Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001, 20(1):61-67.
• [2]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.
• [3]Groves R: Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2006, 70(5):646-675.
• [4]VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL: Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof 2007, 30(4):303-321.
• [5]Thran S, Hixson J: Physician surveys: recent difficulties and proposed solutions. ASA Proc Sec Survey Res Methods 2000, 233-237.
• [6]Kaner EF, Haighton CA, McAvoy BR: "So much post, so busy with practice - so, no time!": A telephone survey of general practitioners' reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys. British Journal of General Practice 1998, 48:1067-1069.
• [7]Heywood A, Mudge P, Ring I, Sanson-Fisher R: Reducing systematic bias in studies of general practitioners: the use of a medical peer in the recruitment of general practitioners in research. Fam Pract 1995, 12(2):227-231.
• [8]Parsons J, Warnecke R, Cazja R, Barnsley J, Kaluzny A: Factors associated with response rates in a national survey of primary-care physicians. Eval Rev 1991, 18(6):756-766.
• [9]Beebe TJ, Locke GR, Barnes SA, Davern ME, Anderson KJ: Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians. Health Serv Res 2007, 42(3 Pt 1):1219-1234.
• [10]Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R: Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, (2):MR000008.
• [11]Dommeyer C, Elganayan D, Umans C: Increasing mail survey response with an envelope teaser. J Mark Res Soc 1991, 33(2):139-140.
• [12]Asch DA, Christakis NA: Different response rates in a trial of two envelop styles in mail survey research. Epidemiology 1994, 5(3):364-365.
• [13]Klabunde C, McLeod C, Willis G: Designing and fielding high quality surveys of physicians and medical group practices: A research agenda. Peachtree, Georgia: In Tenth Conference on Health Survey Research Methods; 2011.
• [14]Antiel RM, Curlin FA, James KM, Tilburt JC: Physicians' beliefs and U.S. health care reform--a national survey. N Engl J Med 2009, 361(14):e23.
• [15]Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Goldstein J, West DW, Ayanian JZ: Randomized trial of $20 versus $50 incentives to increase physician survey response rates. Med Care 2008, 46(8):878-881.
• [16]Cull WL, O'Connor KG, Sharp S, Tang SF: Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians. Health Serv Res 2005, 40(1):213-226.
• [17]McMahon SR, Iwamoto M, Massoudi MS, Yusuf HR, Stevenson JM, David F, Chu SY, Pickering LK: Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians. Pediatrics 2003, 111(4 Pt 1):e299-e303.