Beebe Timothy J, Locke G Richard, Barnes Sunni A, Davern Michael E, Anderson Kari J
Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2007 Jun;42(3 Pt 1):1219-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00652.x.
To assess the effects of two different mixed-mode (mail and web survey) combinations on response rates, response times, and nonresponse bias in a sample of primary care and specialty internal medicine physicians.
DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary data were collected from 500 physicians with an appointment in the Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine (DOM) between February and March 2005.
Physicians were randomly assigned to receive either an initial mailed survey evaluating the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) with a web survey follow-up to nonrespondents or its converse-an initial web survey followed by a mailed survey to nonrespondents. Response rates for each condition were calculated using standard formula. Response times were determined as well. Nonresponse bias was measured by comparing selected characteristics of survey respondents to similar characteristics in the full sample frame. In addition, the distributions of results on key outcome variables were compared overall and by data collection condition and phase.
Overall response rates were somewhat higher in the mail/web condition (70.5 percent) than in the web/mail condition (62.9 percent); differences were more pronounced before the mode switch prior to the mailing to nonrespondents. Median response time was 2 days faster in the web/mail condition than in the mail/web (median=5 and 7 days, respectively) but there was evidence of under-representation of specialist physicians and those who used the EMR a half a day or less each day in the web/mail condition before introduction of the mailed component. This did not translate into significant inconsistencies or differences in the distributions of key outcome variables, however.
A methodology that uses an initial mailing of a self-administered form followed by a web survey to nonrespondents provides slightly higher response rates and a more representative sample than one that starts with web and ends with a mailed survey. However, if the length of the data collection period is limited and rapid response is important, perhaps the web survey followed by a mailed questionnaire is to be preferred. Key outcome variables appear to be unaffected by the data collection method.
评估两种不同的混合模式(邮件和网络调查)组合对基层医疗和内科专科医生样本的回复率、回复时间和无应答偏差的影响。
数据来源/研究背景:2005年2月至3月期间,从梅奥诊所医学部(DOM)预约就诊的500名医生中收集了原始数据。
医生被随机分配,要么先收到一份评估电子病历(EMR)的邮寄调查问卷,对未回复者进行网络调查跟进;要么相反,先进行网络调查,然后对未回复者进行邮寄调查。使用标准公式计算每种情况的回复率,同时确定回复时间。通过比较调查受访者的选定特征与完整样本框架中的类似特征来衡量无应答偏差。此外,还对关键结果变量的结果分布进行了总体比较,并按数据收集条件和阶段进行了比较。
邮件/网络模式下的总体回复率(70.5%)略高于网络/邮件模式(62.9%);在向未回复者邮寄之前的模式转换之前,差异更为明显。网络/邮件模式下的中位回复时间比邮件/网络模式快2天(中位数分别为5天和7天),但有证据表明,在引入邮寄部分之前,网络/邮件模式下专科医生以及每天使用电子病历半天或更少时间的医生代表性不足。然而,这并没有转化为关键结果变量分布的显著不一致或差异。
与先进行网络调查然后进行邮寄调查的方法相比,先邮寄一份自填式表格然后对未回复者进行网络调查的方法提供了略高的回复率和更具代表性的样本。然而,如果数据收集期的长度有限且快速回复很重要,那么也许先进行网络调查然后进行邮寄问卷的方式更可取。关键结果变量似乎不受数据收集方法的影响。