Altruistic donation to improve survey responses: a global randomized trial

Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices

Surveys involving health care providers continue to be characterized by low and declining response rates (RRs), and researchers have utilized various strategies to increase survey participation. An important approach is to employ monetary incentives to improve survey response. Using a systematic review and analyses of 100 randomized comparisons (published in 48 papers) between monetary incentives and a non-incentive condition, this paper seeks to advance the understanding of best practices for using monetary incentives in clinician surveys. These analyses show even small incentives (≤$2) to be effective in improving clinician response relative to non-incentive subgroups, with diminished returns associated with serial incremental increases above that amount up to amounts greater than $25, at which point there is an appreciable improvement, supporting the use of higher incentives in this population. Cash and direct cash equivalents (e.g., cash cards and checks) produced greater odds of survey participation compared to vouchers, lotteries and charitable contributions, with lotteries and charities being the least effective forms of monetary incentive. Survey mode, timing and ethical considerations are also addressed. Noting the challenges associated with surveying clinicians, researchers must make every effort to improve access to this difficult-to-reach population by implementing appropriate incentive-based strategies designed to improve participation rates.

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 We contacted the authors of all trials or reviews to ask about unpublished trials; where necessary, we also contacted authors to confirm the methods of allocation used and to clarify results presented.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.

Cross-sectional survey of patients, caregivers, and physicians on diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases

BACKGROUND

The development of brain metastases (BM) is one of the most feared complications of cancer due to the substantial neurocognitive morbidity and a grim prognosis. In the past decade, targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated promising intracranial response rates for tumors of multiple histologies. As overall survival for these patients improves, there is a growing need to identify issues surrounding patient survivorship and to standardize physician practice patterns for these patients. To date, there has not been an adequate study to specifically explore these questions of survivorship and practice standardization for patients with advanced cancer and BM.

METHODS

Here, we present results from a cross-sectional survey in which we analyze responses from 237 patients, 209 caregivers, and 239 physicians to identify areas of improvement in the clinical care of BM.

RESULTS

In comparing physician and patient/caregiver responses, we found a disparity in the perceived discussion of topics pertaining to important aspects of BM clinical care. We identified variability in practice patterns for this patient population between private practice and academic physicians. Many physicians continue to have patients with BM excluded from clinical trials. Finally, we obtained patient/physician recommendations on high-yield areas for federal funding to improve patient quality of life.

CONCLUSION

By identifying potential areas of unmet need, we anticipate this wealth of actionable information will translate into tangible benefits for both patients and caregivers. Future studies are needed to validate our findings.

Estado de la urología reconstructiva en Colombia: Tratamiento de la estrechez uretral anterior, una encuesta nacional

Purpose El tratamiento mínimamente invasivo de la estrechez uretral tiene altas tasas de recurrencia y re-operación a largo plazo, no obstante, encuestas realizadas en otros países han demostrado que los urólogos tienen poca experiencia con la uretroplastia abierta y hay una preferencia a la utilización de las terapias endoscópicas mínimamente invasivas. El objetivo de este estudio, es describir patrones de práctica del tratamiento de la estrechez de uretra anterior en nuestro país.

Métodos Se trata de un estudio observacional descriptivo y para ello se realizó un cuestionario adaptado a nuestro contexto nacional, basado en varios estudios previamente realizados acerca de la experiencia en Urología reconstructiva. Ese cuestionario incluía información sobre la edad, nivel de experiencia en urología general, la experiencia en urología reconstructiva, escenario de la práctica y las técnicas preferidas para el manejo de las estrecheces uretrales pendulares y bulbares. La información fue almacenada de forma anónima, los datos fueron analizados mediante el paquete estadístico SPSS y se realizó un análisis de distribución de frecuencias.

Resultados Se obtuvieron 106 respuestas de los urólogos encuestados. Para el tratamiento de la estrechez uretral pendular la mayoría de los urólogos prefiere el manejo endoscópico mínimamente invasivo, seguido de uretroplastia con injerto con porcentajes de 69,9% y 25,5% respectivamente. Solo el 5% prefiere derivar a sus pacientes a un centro especializado. Para la estrechez de la uretra bulbar se prefiere las técnicas mínimamente invasivas, uretroplastia y remisión a un centro especializado en un 44,3%, 41,5% y 14,2% respectivamente. La población más joven y con formación urológica más reciente tiende a hacer más a menudo la uretroplastia con injerto y menos manejo endoscópico, específicamente la uretrotomía interna. En las ciudades intermedias, hay una predilección por el tratamiento endoscópico, especialmente uretrotomía interna.

Conclusiones El enfoque de tratamiento mínimamente invasivo de la estrechez uretral es el más frecuentemente elegido a pesar de sus pobres tasas de éxito a largo plazo. Es de destacar que las nuevas generaciones de urólogos muestran más interés y dominio de las técnicas abiertas, tratamiento estándar hoy en día y con bajas tasas de recaídas y reoperación a largo plazo.

Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study

Background

Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.

Objective

Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.

Methods

Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.

Results

A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.

Conclusions

Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.