Taljaard Monica, Chaudhry Shazia Hira, Brehaut Jamie C, Weijer Charles, Grimshaw Jeremy M
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Civic Campus, Admin Services Building, C409, ASB 2-004, Civic Box 693, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Oct 16;8:574. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1570-5.
Low response rates and inadequate question comprehension threaten the validity of survey results. We describe a simple procedure to implement personalized-as opposed to generically worded-questionnaires in the context of a complex web-based survey of corresponding authors of a random sample of 300 published cluster randomized trials. The purpose of the survey was to gather more detailed information about informed consent procedures used in the trial, over and above basic information provided in the trial report. We describe our approach-which allowed extensive personalization without the need for specialized computer technology-and discuss its potential application in similar settings.
The mail merge feature of standard word processing software was used to generate unique, personalized questionnaires for each author by incorporating specific information from the article, including naming the randomization unit (e.g., family practice, school, worksite), and identifying specific individuals who may have been considered research participants at the cluster level (family doctors, teachers, employers) and individual level (patients, students, employees) in questions regarding informed consent procedures in the trial. The response rate was relatively high (64%, 182/285) and did not vary significantly by author, publication, or study characteristics. The refusal rate was low (7%).
While controlled studies are required to examine the specific effects of our approach on comprehension, quality of responses, and response rates, we showed how mail merge can be used as a simple but useful tool to add personalized fields to complex survey questionnaires, or to request additional information required from study authors. One potential application is in eliciting specific information about published articles from study authors when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
低回复率和问题理解不充分会威胁调查结果的有效性。在对300项已发表的整群随机试验的随机样本的通讯作者进行的基于网络的复杂调查中,我们描述了一种简单的程序,以实施个性化(而非通用措辞)问卷。该调查的目的是收集有关试验中使用的知情同意程序的更详细信息,超出试验报告中提供的基本信息。我们描述了我们的方法——该方法无需专门的计算机技术即可实现广泛的个性化——并讨论了其在类似环境中的潜在应用。
使用标准文字处理软件的邮件合并功能,通过纳入文章中的特定信息,为每位作者生成独特的个性化问卷,包括在关于试验知情同意程序的问题中,指明随机化单位(如家庭医疗、学校、工作场所),并识别在整群层面(家庭医生、教师、雇主)和个体层面(患者、学生、员工)可能被视为研究参与者的特定个体。回复率相对较高(64%,182/285),且不因作者、出版物或研究特征而有显著差异。拒绝率较低(7%)。
虽然需要对照研究来检验我们的方法对理解、回复质量和回复率的具体影响,但我们展示了邮件合并如何可以用作一个简单但有用的工具,为复杂调查问卷添加个性化字段,或向研究作者请求所需的额外信息。一个潜在应用是在进行系统评价和荟萃分析时,从研究作者那里获取有关已发表文章的特定信息。