Gift card incentives and non-response bias in a survey of vaccine providers: the role of geographic and demographic factors

Kidney Transplantation Contraindications: Variation in Nephrologist Practice and Training Vintage

Introduction

Health system leaders aim to increase access to kidney transplantation in part by encouraging nephrologists to refer more patients for transplant evaluation. Little is known about nephrologists' referral decisions and whether nephrologists with older training vintage weigh patient criteria differently (e.g., more restrictively).

Methods

Using a novel, iteratively validated survey of US-based nephrologists, we examined how nephrologists assess adult patients' suitability for transplant, focusing on established, important criteria: 7 clinical (e.g., overweight) and 7 psychosocial (e.g., insurance). We quantified variation in nephrologist restrictiveness-proportion of criteria interpreted as absolute or partial contraindications versus minor or negligible concerns-and tested associations between restrictiveness and nephrologist age (proxy for training vintage) in logistic regression models, controlling for nephrologist-level and practice-level factors.

Results

Of 144 nephrologists invited, 42 survey respondents (29% response rate) were 85% male and 54% non-Hispanic White, with mean age 52 years, and 67% spent ≥1 day/wk in outpatient dialysis facilities. Nephrologists interpreted patient criteria inconsistently; consistency was lower for psychosocial criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.28) than for clinical criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.43; P < 0.01). With each additional 10 years of age, nephrologists' odds of interpreting criteria restrictively (top tertile) doubled (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-4.07), with marginal statistical significance. This relationship was significant when interpreting psychosocial criteria (aOR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.16-8.71) but not when interpreting clinical criteria (aOR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52-2.38).

Conclusion

Nephrologists interpret evaluation criteria variably when assessing patient suitability for transplant. Guideline-based educational interventions could influence nephrologists' referral decision-making differentially by age.

A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery

PURPOSE

Surveys generate valuable data in epidemiologic and qualitative clinical research. The quality of a survey depends on its design, the number of responses it receives, and the reporting of the results. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of surveys in neurosurgery.

METHODS

Neurosurgical surveys published between 2000 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified from PubMed. Various datapoints regarding the surveys were collated. The number of citations received by the papers was determined from Google Scholar. A 6-dimensional quality assessment tool was applied to the surveys. Parameters from this tool were combined with the number of responses received to create the survey quality score (SQS).

RESULTS

A total of 618 surveys were included for analysis. The target sample size correlated with the number of responses received. The response rate correlated positively with the target sample size and the number of reminders sent and negatively with the number of questions in the survey. The median number of authors on neurosurgery survey papers was 6. The number of authors correlated with the SQS and the number of citations received by published survey papers. The median normalized SQS for neurosurgical surveys was 65%. The nSQS independently predicted the citations received per year by surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

The modifiable factors that correlated with improvements in survey design were optimizing the number of questions, maximizing the target sample size, and incorporating reminders in the survey design. Increasing the number of contributing authors led to improvements in survey quality. The SQS was validated and correlated well with the citations received by surveys.

Vaccine package inserts and prescribing habits of obstetricians-gynecologists for maternal vaccination

Despite ample evidence of the safety and efficacy of the influenza vaccine and the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy, two-thirds of pregnant women do not receive these vaccines. Providers have a significant role in increasing prenatal vaccine uptake. It is important to understand how different sources of vaccine prescribing information, such as Food and Drug Administration package inserts, influence provider recommendations. We aimed to examine the role of vaccine package inserts in provider recommendations and perceptions of safety and effectiveness of vaccines during pregnancy. A cross-sectional survey was mailed to a random, weighted sample of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellows living in the United States in March 2019. Providers were asked about their attitudes toward package inserts, and to evaluate sample package insert statements following two different labeling rules. Their evaluations of each rule were then compared. Of the 321 respondents, the majority (90%, 288/321) recommended and/or administered maternal vaccinations. Few respondents (7.8%, 25/321) read package inserts for information regarding vaccination. Respondents were less likely to recommend sample vaccines with Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule-complying inserts (46.1%, 148/321) than vaccines with Pregnancy Category inserts (87.5%, 282/321). Although most providers did not actively utilize vaccine package inserts to inform recommendations, the previous Pregnancy Categories rule was preferred compared to the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule. Collaborative efforts to update inserts with current clinical practices for pregnancy would be valuable in reducing apprehensiveness around package inserts to generate safer and more cogent recommendations for pregnant women.

Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial

Background

Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of population-based BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives.

Methods

Participants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs’ knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site.

Results

In unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

Conclusions

An up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians’ geographic location.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.

A preliminary investigation examining patient reported outcome measures for low back pain and utilisation amongst chiropractors in Australia: facilitators and barriers to clinical implementation

Background

The current utilisation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for low back pain (LBP) within the Australian Chiropractic profession is unknown. The aims of this study were to determine the current utilisation of LBP PROMs amongst Chiropractors in Australia and to identify the potential barriers and facilitators of using PROMs for LBP in Chiropractic practice.

Methods

A cross sectional online survey was distributed to Chiropractors in Australia who were members of the Chiropractic Association of Australia (CAA) and Chiropractic Australia (CA) between June-August 2016. Three thousand fourteen CAA members and 930 CA members were invited to participate totaling 3944 potential participants.

Results

The findings from this survey provides baseline data for the prevalence of LBP PROMs within the Australian Chiropractic profession. A total of 558 participants completed the survey reflecting a response rate of 14.1%. 72.5% of respondents used LBP PROMs in clinical practice. PROMs were categorised into pain, function and health. At initial patient consultations the most commonly used pain PROMs were the pain diagram, Visual Analogue Scale and Numeric Rating Scale. Most commonly used functional LBP PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index, Functional Rating Index and Roland Morris Questionnaire. The Health Status Questionnaire (HSQ) was the most commonly used health LBP PROM followed by RAND Health Questionnaires.

Conclusion

Most of the survey respondents use PROMs in clinical practice. The most common barrier chiropractors identified that prevent LBP PROM utilisation was the lack of operational definition surrounding PROMs, as well as how to use them and the perception that they are time consuming. Facilitatory factors to implement PROMs included using simple administration systems, utilising electronic forms and consistent implementation. This research indicates that there is a potential need to further educate the Chiropractic profession regarding PROMs.

Challenges and changes: immunization program managers share perspectives in a 2012 national survey about the US immunization system since the H1N1 pandemic response

In mid-2012 we conducted survey of immunization program managers (IPMs) for the purpose of describing relationships between immunization programs and emergency preparedness programs, IPM's perceptions of challenges encountered and changes made or planned in programmatic budgeting, vaccine allocation and pandemic plans as a result of the H1N1 vaccination campaign. Over 95% of IPMs responded (61/64) to the survey. IPMs reported that a primary budget-related challenge faced during H1N1 included staff-related restrictions that limited the ability to hire extra help or pay regular staff overtime resulting in overworked regular staff. Other budget-related challenges related to operational budget shortfalls and vaccine procurement delays. IPMs described overcoming these challenges by increasing staff where possible, using executive order or other high-level support by officials to access emergency funds and make policy changes, as well as expedite hiring and spending processes according to their pandemic influenza plan or by direction from leadership. Changes planned for response to future pandemic vaccine allocation strategies were to "tailor the strategy to the event" taking into account disease virulence, vaccine production rates and public demand, having flexible vaccine allocation strategies, clarifying priority groups for vaccine receipt to providers and the public, and having targeted clinics such as through pharmacies or schools. Changes already made to pandemic plans were improving strategies for internal and external communication, improving vaccine allocation efficiency, and planning for specific scenarios. To prepare for future pandemics, programs should ensure well-defined roles, collaborating during non-emergency situations, sustaining continuity in preparedness funding, and improved technologies.

Allowing Physicians to Choose the Value of Compensation for Participation in a Web-Based Survey: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Survey response rates among physicians are declining, and determining an appropriate level of compensation to motivate participation poses a major challenge.

Objective

To estimate the effect of permitting intensive care physicians to select their preferred level of compensation for completing a short Web-based survey on physician (1) response rate, (2) survey completion rate, (3) time to response, and (4) time spent completing the survey.

Methods

A total of 1850 US intensivists from an existing database were randomized to receive a survey invitation email with or without an Amazon.com incentive available to the first 100 respondents. The incentive could be instantly redeemed for an amount chosen by the respondent, up to a maximum of US $50.

Results

The overall response rate was 35.90% (630/1755). Among the 35.4% (111/314) of eligible participants choosing the incentive, 80.2% (89/111) selected the maximum value. Among intensivists offered an incentive, the response was 6.0% higher (95% CI 1.5-10.5, P=.01), survey completion was marginally greater (807/859, 94.0% vs 892/991, 90.0%; P=.06), and the median number of days to survey response was shorter (0.8, interquartile range [IQR] 0.2-14.4 vs 6.6, IQR 0.3-22.3; P=.001), with no difference in time spent completing the survey.

Conclusions

Permitting intensive care physicians to determine compensation level for completing a short Web-based survey modestly increased response rate and substantially decreased response time without decreasing the time spent on survey completion.

Vaccine providers' perspectives on impact, challenges, and response during the California 2010 pertussis outbreak

INTRODUCTION

California has experienced its worst outbreak of pertussis in 50 y. In preparing for such outbreaks of pertussis, vaccine providers in the state play a key role in educating patients about the public health implications of vaccination, explaining the benefits to immunization, and facilitating patients' receipt of recommended immunizations.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of 800 California vaccine providers to investigate provider level response to recent pertussis outbreaks and regulation by provider type and geography.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent (533/777) of vaccine providers within the state of California responded to the survey. Fifty-three percent (278/527) of vaccine providers indicated that it was part of standard care at their practice or pharmacy location to ask adult patients about pertussis vaccine (Table 1) and this varied across practice types (P<0.0001). Fifty-seven percent of providers (270/476) indicated that the information they received from the state about pertussis during the 2010 California pertussis outbreak was very useful or useful, while 52% of providers indicated this information was neutral, not useful, not at all useful. Vaccine administration, patient groups seen, and challenges varied by provider type however meaningful differences among subpopulations to which the vaccine was administered were found between provider types (P<0.001, Table 2).

CONCLUSION

The 2010 pertussis outbreak in California challenged vaccine providers in a way that changed the preparation, promotion, and planning for future outbreaks and emergency situations. Adaptability to the new state law and increased awareness of pertussis in the physician community were important in the number of patients receiving the vaccine. Also, forming partnerships with schools and health agencies were important in facilitating and promoting wide spread vaccination.

Partners in immunization: 2010 survey examining differences among H1N1 vaccine providers in Washington state

OBJECTIVES

Emergency response involving mass vaccination requires the involvement of traditional vaccine providers as well as other health-care providers, including pharmacists, obstetricians, and health-care providers at correctional facilities. We explored differences in provider experiences administering pandemic vaccine during a public health emergency.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of H1N1 vaccine providers in Washington State, examining topics regarding pandemic vaccine administration, participation in preparedness activities, and communication with public health agencies. We also examined differences among provider types in responses received (n=619, 80.9% response rate).

RESULTS

Compared with other types of vaccine providers (e.g., family practitioners, obstetricians, and specialists), pharmacists reported higher patient volumes as well as higher patient-to-practitioner ratios, indicating a broad capacity for community reach. Pharmacists and correctional health-care providers reported lower staff coverage with seasonal and H1N1 vaccines. Compared with other vaccine providers, pharmacists were also more likely to report relying on public health information from federal sources. They were less likely to report relying on local health departments (LHDs) for pandemic-related information, but indicated a desire to be included in LHD communications and plans. While all provider types indicated a high willingness to respond to a public health emergency, pharmacists were less likely to have participated in training, actual emergency response, or surge capacity initiatives. No obstetricians reported participating in surge capacity initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this survey suggest that efforts to increase communication and interaction between public health agencies and pharmacy, obstetric, and correctional health-care vaccine providers may improve future preparedness and emergency response capability and reach.