Effect of prenotification on the response rate of a postal survey of emergency physicians: a randomised, controlled, assessor-blind trial

Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires

BACKGROUND

Self-administered questionnaires are widely used to collect data in epidemiological research, but non-response reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias. Finding ways to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires would improve the quality of epidemiological research.

OBJECTIVES

To identify effective strategies to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic databases up to December 2021 and manually searched the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews. We contacted the authors of all trials or reviews to ask about unpublished trials; where necessary, we also contacted authors to confirm the methods of allocation used and to clarify results presented.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of methods to increase response to postal or electronic questionnaires. We assessed the eligibility of each trial using pre-defined criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the trial participants, the intervention, the number randomised to intervention and comparison groups and allocation concealment. For each strategy, we estimated pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. We assessed evidence for selection bias using Egger's weighted regression method and Begg's rank correlation test and funnel plot. We assessed heterogeneity amongst trial odds ratios using a Chi2 test and quantified the degree of inconsistency between trial results using the I2 statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Postal We found 670 eligible trials that evaluated over 100 different strategies of increasing response to postal questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity amongst trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response almost doubled when: using monetary incentives (odds ratio (OR) 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 1.99; heterogeneity I2 = 85%); using a telephone reminder (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.74); and when clinical outcome questions were placed last (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 4.24). The odds of response increased by about half when: using a shorter questionnaire (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.78); contacting participants before sending questionnaires (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.51; I2 = 87%); incentives were given with questionnaires (i.e. unconditional) rather than when given only after participants had returned their questionnaire (i.e. conditional on response) (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.35 to 1.74); using personalised SMS reminders (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.97 to 2.42); using a special (recorded) delivery service (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.08; I2 = 87%); using electronic reminders (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33); using intensive follow-up (OR 1.69; 95% CI 0.93 to 3.06); using a more interesting/salient questionnaire (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.66); and when mentioning an obligation to respond (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22). The odds of response also increased with: non-monetary incentives (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.21; I2 = 80%); a larger monetary incentive (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.33); a larger non-monetary incentive (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); when a pen was included (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.50); using personalised materials (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.21; I2 = 57%); using a single-sided rather than a double-sided questionnaire (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25); using stamped return envelopes rather than franked return envelopes (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.33; I2 = 69%), assuring confidentiality (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.42); using first-class outward mailing (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21); and when questionnaires originated from a university (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.54). The odds of response were reduced when the questionnaire included questions of a sensitive nature (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). Electronic We found 88 eligible trials that evaluated over 30 different ways of increasing response to electronic questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity amongst trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response tripled when: using a brief letter rather than a detailed letter (OR 3.26; 95% CI 1.79 to 5.94); and when a picture was included in an email (OR 3.05; 95% CI 1.84 to 5.06; I2 = 19%). The odds of response almost doubled when: using monetary incentives (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.71; I2 = 79%); and using a more interesting topic (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by half when: using non-monetary incentives (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.05); using shorter e-questionnaires (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.16; I2 = 94%); and using a more interesting e-questionnaire (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by a third when: offering survey results as an incentive (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.59); using a white background (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.56); and when stressing the benefits to society of response (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.78; I2 = 41%). The odds of response also increased with: personalised e-questionnaires (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32; I2 = 41%); using a simple header (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48); giving a deadline (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); and by giving a longer time estimate for completion (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.64). The odds of response were reduced when: "Survey" was mentioned in the e-mail subject (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97); when the email or the e-questionnaire was from a male investigator, or it included a male signature (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80); and by using university sponsorship (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.69 to 1.01). The odds of response using a postal questionnaire were over twice those using an e-questionnaire (OR 2.33; 95% CI 2.25 to 2.42; I2 = 98%). Response also increased when: providing a choice of response mode (electronic or postal) rather than electronic only (OR 1.76 95% CI 1.67 to 1.85; I2 = 97%); and when administering the e-questionnaire by computer rather than by smartphone (OR 1.62 95% CI 1.36 to 1.94).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Researchers using postal and electronic questionnaires can increase response using the strategies shown to be effective in this Cochrane review.

Dental and Maxillofacial Emergency Algorithms in Swiss Emergency Departments

This study aimed to evaluate the availability and use of dental and maxillofacial emergency algorithms in Swiss hospitals. A survey was performed among physicians at Swiss emergency departments (ED) and participants of the "36th Annual Meeting of the Society for Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery". Eighty-nine EDs in Switzerland were questioned about the availability and use of electronic algorithms in their hospitals. Eighty-one (91%) participated in the study. In 75 (93%) of the EDs, electronic algorithms are used, mainly "medStandards". Six have no available algorithms. Fifty-two (64%) use algorithms daily. Eight (10%) Swiss EDs have maxillofacial and dental algorithms, and 73 (90%) have no access to or do not know about them. For dental algorithms, 28 (38%) of the respondents would like to have access, and 16 (22%) do not desire access. For maxillofacial algorithms, 23 (32%) want to have access and 21 (29%) do not want it. Most (74%) of the participating maxillofacial surgeons did not know about the existence of ED algorithms regarding their specialty. Our study shows that the existence of specific algorithms is often not known. Furthermore, there is a demand for dental and maxillofacial algorithms in Swiss EDs.

Current practice for primary headache disorders and perspectives on peripheral nerve blocks among emergency physicians in Canada: A national survey

OBJECTIVE

This national postal survey aimed to examine Canadian emergency physicians' practice patterns with respect to drug treatment and perspectives on peripheral nerve blocks.

BACKGROUND

The treatment of primary headache disorders in the emergency department is variable.

METHODS

We surveyed 500 emergency physicians listed in the Canadian Medical Directory according to a modified Dillman's method: an initial invitation was followed by up to four reminders to nonresponders. Physicians were asked questions regarding their frequency of medication administration and perspectives toward peripheral nerve blocks.

RESULTS

Of 500 mailed surveys, 468 were delivered and 179 physicians responded (response rate = 38.2%). The majority of physicians were men (92/144, 63.9%); 80.6% (116/144) had been in practice for greater than or equal to 10 years with 50.7% (75/148) in a community or district general teaching hospital. Commonly used pharmacotherapies for primary headaches were intravenous dopamine receptor antagonists (69%), co-administration of ketorolac and a dopamine receptor antagonist (54.2%), intravenous fluid boluses (54%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone (53.5%), and acetaminophen (51.4%). Only 80 of 144 physicians (55.6%) reported previous experience with peripheral nerve blocks (95% confidence interval [CI] = 48%-65%). The majority (68/80, 85.0%) agreed peripheral nerve blocks are safe and 55.1% (43/78) agreed they are effective. The vast majority (118/140, 84.3%) would consider peripheral nerve blocks as a first-line treatment option given sufficient evidence from a future trial (95% CI = 78%-90%).

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs alone, as well as dopamine receptor antagonists with or without ketorolac are commonly used for primary headache in Canadian emergency departments. A large proportion of physicians have never used a peripheral nerve block in their practice; among those who have experience with peripheral nerve blocks, the majority find them safe and effective. The majority of respondents would consider peripheral nerve blocks as a first-line treatment option given sufficient evidence from a future trial.

Randomized experiment on the effect of incentives and mailing strategy on response rates in a mail survey of dentists

OBJECTIVES

Response rates for mail surveys of dentists and other health care providers have declined appreciably over the past several decades. The objective of this study was to update evidence about the impact use of incentives and different mail strategies on response rates in a mail survey of dentists.

METHODS

We randomized private practice dentists in Iowa (N = 1267) into six study groups to test the effects of incentives and mail strategy on response rate. Survey incentives included either a $2 bill or a customized pen/stylus; a control group with no incentive was included. Mail strategies included bulk mail or first-class stamps.

RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 43%. A $2 bill incentive was associated with significantly higher likelihood of returning a survey compared to the control group with no incentive (48% response rate vs. 40%, respectively). A non-monetary incentive was not significantly associated with likelihood of response. Use of first-class stamps compared to bulk mail did not significantly affect response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the effectiveness of a $2 incentive to increase response rate in a mail survey of dentists. Given the background trend of declining survey participation rates, researchers should consider use of monetary incentives and explore new strategies to increase participation among dentists and other health care providers.