Dataset Information

Do additional recontacts to increase response rate improve physician survey data quality?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although response rates for physician surveys have been decreasing, it is not clear whether this trend is associated with an increase in survey nonresponse bias. One means for assessing potential bias is to conduct a level-of-effort analysis that compares data estimates for respondents interviewed during the first recruitment contact to respondents interviewed at later recontact cycles. METHODS:We compared early and later responders within the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors with respect to both demographic characteristics and aggregate survey responses to items on survivor care knowledge, attitudes, and practices. RESULTS:Accumulating additional completions across each of 4 respondent contact attempts improved weighted response rates (35.0%, 46.9%, 52.3%, and 57.6%, respectively). However, the majority of estimates for analyzed variables remained relatively unchanged over additional cycles of recontact. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that additional respondent recontact attempts, especially beyond a single recontact, had little influence on key data distributions, suggesting that these were ineffective in reducing nonresponse bias. Further, the conduct of additional recruitment recontacts was an inefficient means for increasing statistical power. For the conduct of physician surveys, a practice that may in some cases be cost-effective, while also controlling total survey error, is to establish a larger initial sample; to either eliminate nonresponse follow-up or to limit this to one recontact; and to accept a somewhat lower final overall survey response rate.

SUBMITTER: Willis GB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3784997 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do additional recontacts to increase response rate improve physician survey data quality?

Willis Gordon B GB Smith Tenbroeck T Lee Hyunshik J HJ

Medical care 20131001 10

<h4>Background</h4>Although response rates for physician surveys have been decreasing, it is not clear whether this trend is associated with an increase in survey nonresponse bias. One means for assessing potential bias is to conduct a level-of-effort analysis that compares data estimates for respondents interviewed during the first recruitment contact to respondents interviewed at later recontact cycles.<h4>Methods</h4>We compared early and later responders within the Survey of Physician Attitu ...[more]

PMID: 23969583

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFirearm injury and death is increasingly prevalent in the United States. Emergency physicians (EP) may have a unique role in firearm injury prevention. The aim of this study was to describe EPs' beliefs, attitudes, practices, and barriers to identifying risk of and counseling on firearm injury prevention with patients. A secondary aim was assessment of perceived personal vulnerability to firearm injury while working in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a national convenience sample of EPs, using questions adapted from the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma 2017 survey of surgeons. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were calculated as appropriate.ResultsA total of 1901 surveys were completed by EPs from across the United States. Among respondents, 42.9% had a firearm at home, and 56.0% had received firearm safety training. Although 51.4% of physicians in our sample were comfortable discussing firearm access with their high-risk patients, more than 70% agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted training on procedures to follow when they identify that a patient is at high risk of firearm injury. Respondents reported a variety of current practices regarding screening, counseling, and resource use for patients at high risk of firearm injury; the highest awareness and self-reported screening and counseling on firearm safety was with patients with suicidal ideation. Although 92.3% of EPs reported concerns about personal safety associated with firearms in the ED, 48.1% reported that there was either no protocol for dealing with a firearm in the ED, or if there was a protocol, they were not aware of it. Differences in demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior were observed between respondents with a firearm in the home, and those without a firearm in the home.ConclusionsAmong respondents to this national survey of a convenience sample of EPs, approximately 40% had a firearm at home. The majority reported wanting increased education and training to identify and counsel ED patients at high risk for firearm injury. Improved guidance on personal safety regarding firearms in the ED is also needed.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, online physician-rating websites have become prominent and exert considerable influence on patients' decisions. However, the quality of these decisions depends on the quality of data that these systems collect. Thus, there is a need to examine the various data quality issues with physician-rating websites.ObjectiveThis study's objective was to identify and categorize the data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites by reviewing the literature on online patient-reported physician ratings and reviews.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in ACM Digital Library, EBSCO, Springer, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was limited to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method papers published in the English language from 2001 to 2020.ResultsA total of 423 articles were screened. From these, 49 papers describing 18 unique data quality issues afflicting physician-rating websites were included. Using a data quality framework, we classified these issues into the following four categories: intrinsic, contextual, representational, and accessible. Among the papers, 53% (26/49) reported intrinsic data quality errors, 61% (30/49) highlighted contextual data quality issues, 8% (4/49) discussed representational data quality issues, and 27% (13/49) emphasized accessibility data quality. More than half the papers discussed multiple categories of data quality issues.ConclusionsThe results from this review demonstrate the presence of a range of data quality issues. While intrinsic and contextual factors have been well-researched, accessibility and representational issues warrant more attention from researchers, as well as practitioners. In particular, representational factors, such as the impact of inline advertisements and the positioning of positive reviews on the first few pages, are usually deliberate and result from the business model of physician-rating websites. The impact of these factors on data quality has not been addressed adequately and requires further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundWe designed a continuing medical education (CME) program to teach primary care physicians (PCP) how to engage in cancer risk communication and shared decision making with patients who have limited health literacy (HL).ObjectiveWe evaluated whether training PCPs, in addition to audit-feedback, improves their communication behaviors and increases cancer screening among patients with limited HL to a greater extent than only providing clinical performance feedback.DesignFour-year cluster randomized controlled trial.ParticipantsEighteen PCPs and 168 patients with limited HL who were overdue for colorectal/breast/cervical cancer screening.InterventionsCommunication intervention PCPs received skills training that included standardized patient (SP) feedback on counseling behaviors. All PCPs underwent chart audits of patients' screening status semiannually up to 24 months and received two annual performance feedback reports.Main measuresPCPs experienced three unannounced SP encounters during which SPs rated PCP communication behaviors. We examined between-group differences in changes in SP ratings and patient knowledge of cancer screening guidelines over 12 months; and changes in patient cancer screening rates over 24 months.Key resultsThere were no group differences in SP ratings of physician communication at baseline. At follow-up, communication intervention PCPs were rated higher in general communication about cancer risks and shared decision making related to colorectal cancer screening compared to PCPs who only received performance feedback. Screening rates increased among patients of PCPs in both groups; however, there were no between-group differences in screening rates except for mammography. The communication intervention did not improve patient cancer screening knowledge.ConclusionCompared to audit and feedback alone, including PCP communication training increases PCP patient-centered counseling behaviors, but not cancer screening among patients with limited HL. Larger studies must be conducted to determine whether lack of changes in cancer screening were due to clinic/patient sample size versus ineffectiveness of communication training to change outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundCyproterone acetate (CPA) is a synthetic progesterone derivative introduced in the 1970s and prescribed as antiandrogenic therapy for inoperable prostate cancer, sexual deviations in men, and signs of androgenization in women. In 2020, the CPA summary of product characteristics (SmPC) was revised to include an updated special warning and precaution about (1) the risk of meningioma with increasing cumulative dose and (2) contraindication in patients with meningioma or history of meningioma. A Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) was distributed. The European Medicine Agency's Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee requested that marketing authorization holders in Europe conduct a survey to assess physicians' knowledge of the updated key safety information. The primary objective of this study was to measure physicians' awareness (i.e., did they receive and review the revised SmPC and DHPC) and level of knowledge and understanding of the key safety information pertaining to the restricted use of CPA monotherapy because of the risk of meningioma.MethodsThis cross-sectional web-based survey was administered to dermatologists, endocrinologists, gynecologists, urologists, oncologists, psychiatrists, and general practitioners in France, Germany, Poland, Spain, and the Netherlands who had prescribed CPA monotherapy in the previous 12 months to assess awareness of the risk of meningioma associated with CPA monotherapy.ResultsOf the 613 physicians who participated, 85% correctly indicated that CPA monotherapy should be prescribed with the lowest effective dose, 75% correctly indicated that the risk of meningioma increases with increasing cumulative CPA monotherapy doses, and 73% correctly indicated that treatment with CPA-containing products must be stopped permanently if a patient is diagnosed with meningioma. Overall, 40% of physicians reported having received the DHPC, and 42% reported having received the revised SmPC.ConclusionsDespite low recall of receipt of the updated SmPC and DHPC, most physicians surveyed are aware of the meningioma risk and actions to mitigate the risk.

Dataset Information

Do additional recontacts to increase response rate improve physician survey data quality?

Publications

Do additional recontacts to increase response rate improve physician survey data quality?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets