Westrick Salisa C, Mount Jeanine K
Pharmacy Care Systems, Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, 128 Miller Hall, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2007 Jun;3(2):160-82. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2006.06.003.
Mail and telephone are commonly used modes of survey with pharmacists. Research conducted using general population surveys consistently describes mail surveys as being less expensive but yielding lower response rates than telephone surveys. However, findings obtained from the general population may not be generalizable to pharmacist surveys.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of telephone follow-up of mail survey nonrespondents by comparing the 2 survey modes on response rates, cooperation rates, cost per sample unit, and cost per usable response and evaluating potential nonresponse bias in the context of immunization activities.
A census mail survey of 1,143 Washington State community pharmacies and a follow-up telephone survey of 262 randomly selected mail survey nonrespondents were compared. Both surveys included the same 15 yes/no-type questions to ask respondents about their pharmacy's involvement in immunization activities.
The mail survey yielded a response rate 1 of 26.7% and a cooperation rate 1 of 26.7%, compared with 83.6% and 87.8%, respectively, for the follow-up telephone survey. With respect to cost per sample unit, the mail survey was the least expensive option ($1.20). However, when comparing cost per usable response, the mail survey was the most expensive ($4.37), and the follow-up telephone survey without an advance notification was the least expensive ($1.99). Furthermore, results suggest the presence of nonresponse bias: compared with pharmacies participating in the follow-up telephone survey, pharmacies participating in the mail survey were more likely to be involved in in-house immunization services but less likely to be involved in outsourced services.
The telephone survey achieved higher outcome rates with reduced cost per usable response. A telephone survey is a viable mode that holds promise in pharmacy practice research. Maximizing response rates and assessing potential nonresponse bias should be a standard practice among pharmacy practice researchers. More methodology research specific to pharmacist surveys is needed.
邮件和电话是对药剂师进行调查常用的方式。利用一般人群调查进行的研究一致表明,邮件调查成本较低,但与电话调查相比,回复率也较低。然而,从一般人群中获得的调查结果可能不适用于药剂师调查。
本研究通过比较两种调查方式在回复率、合作率、每个样本单位成本和每个有效回复成本方面的差异,评估对邮件调查无回复者进行电话随访的有效性,并在免疫活动背景下评估潜在的无回复偏差。
对华盛顿州1143家社区药房进行普查邮件调查,并对随机选择的262名邮件调查无回复者进行后续电话调查。两项调查都包含相同的15个是/否类型问题,询问受访者其药房参与免疫活动的情况。
邮件调查的回复率为26.7%,合作率为26.7%,而后续电话调查的回复率和合作率分别为83.6%和87.8%。就每个样本单位成本而言,邮件调查是最便宜的选择(1.20美元)。然而,在比较每个有效回复成本时,邮件调查是最昂贵的(4.37美元),而没有预先通知的后续电话调查是最便宜的(1.99美元)。此外,结果表明存在无回复偏差:与参与后续电话调查的药房相比,参与邮件调查的药房更有可能提供内部免疫服务,但参与外包服务的可能性较小。
电话调查获得了更高的结果率,且每个有效回复的成本降低。电话调查是一种可行的方式,在药学实践研究中具有前景。最大化回复率并评估潜在的无回复偏差应成为药学实践研究人员的标准做法。需要更多针对药剂师调查的方法学研究。