Akl Elie A, Maroun Nancy, Klocke Robert A, Montori Victor, Schünemann Holger J
Department of Medicine, State University of New York, University at Buffalo, ECMC-CC 142, 462 Grider Street, Buffalo, NY 14215, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):425-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.006.
To compare response rate, time to response, and data quality of electronic and postal surveys in the setting of postgraduate medical education.
A randomized controlled trial in a university-based internal medicine residency program. We randomized 119 residents and 83 faculty to an electronic versus a postal survey with up to two reminders and measured response rate, time to response, and data quality.
For residents, the e-survey resulted in a lower response rate than the postal survey (63.3% versus 79.7%; difference -16.3%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -32.3% to -0.4%%; P=.049), but a shorter mean response time, by 3.8 days (95% CI 0.2-7.4; P=.042). For faculty, the e-survey did not result in a significantly lower response rate than the postal survey (85.4% vs. 81.0%; difference 4.4%, 95% CI -11.7 to 20.5%; P=.591), but resulted in a shorter average response time, by 8.4 days (95% CI 4.4 to 12.4; P < 0.001). There were no differences in the quality of data or responses to the survey between the two methods.
E-surveys were not superior to postal surveys in terms of response rate, but resulted in shorter time to response and equivalent data quality.
比较在研究生医学教育背景下电子调查和邮寄调查的回复率、回复时间及数据质量。
在一所大学的内科住院医师培训项目中进行的随机对照试验。我们将119名住院医师和83名教员随机分为电子调查组和邮寄调查组,最多进行两次提醒,并测量回复率、回复时间和数据质量。
对于住院医师,电子调查的回复率低于邮寄调查(63.3%对79.7%;差异-16.3%,95%置信区间(95%CI)-32.3%至-0.4%;P = 0.049),但平均回复时间短3.8天(95%CI 0.2 - 7.4;P = 0.042)。对于教员,电子调查的回复率并不显著低于邮寄调查(85.4%对81.0%;差异4.4%,95%CI -11.7至20.5%;P = 0.591),但平均回复时间短8.4天(95%CI 4.4至12.4;P < 0.001)。两种方法在数据质量或调查回复方面没有差异。
电子调查在回复率方面并不优于邮寄调查,但回复时间更短且数据质量相当。