Basílio Nuno, Cardoso Sara, Nunes José Mendes, Laranjo Liliana, Antunes Maria da Luz, Heleno Bruno
Family Medicine Physician, Unidade de Saúde Familiar, Portugal.
Family Medicine Physician, Unidade de Cuidados de Saúde Personalizados (UCSP) dos Olivais, Agrupamento de Centros de Saúde, Lisboa, Portugal.
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2018 Mar;64(3):272-280. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.64.03.272.
Surveys are a useful tool in primary care. However, low response rates can introduce selection bias, impairing both external and internal validity. The aim of this study was to assess the average response rate in surveys with Portuguese general practitioners (GPs).
We searched the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PsychInfo, SciELO, IndexRMP, RCAAP, Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar, Acta Médica Portuguesa and the proceedings of conferences of general practice from incepton to December 2016. We included all postal, e-mail, telephone and personal surveys to primary care physicians without language restrictions. We did not assess risk of bias of included studies, since the main outcome was survey response rate. We performed planned subgroup analyses of the use of monetary incentives, the use of non-monetary incentives, survey delivery modes and prior contact with participants.
A total of 1,094 papers were identified and 37 studies were included in this review. The response rate in surveys done to Portuguese GPs was 56% (95CI 47-64%). There was substantial heterogeneity among included studies (I2=99%), but subgroup analysis did not explain this heterogeneity.
Consistent with other published studies, the average response rate in surveys done with Portuguese GPs was 56%, with substantial variation among studies. Use of monetary incentives, one of the most effective strategies to increase response rates, was not present in any of the included studies.
调查是初级保健中的一种有用工具。然而,低回应率可能会引入选择偏倚,损害外部效度和内部效度。本研究的目的是评估针对葡萄牙全科医生(GP)的调查中的平均回应率。
我们检索了Medline、科学引文索引、Scopus、Embase、PsychInfo、SciELO、IndexRMP、RCAAP、《葡萄牙普通与家庭医学杂志》、《葡萄牙医学学报》以及自创刊至2016年12月的全科医学会议论文集。我们纳入了所有针对初级保健医生的邮寄、电子邮件、电话和个人调查,无语言限制。由于主要结果是调查回应率,我们未评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们对货币激励措施的使用、非货币激励措施的使用、调查交付方式以及与参与者的事先接触进行了计划中的亚组分析。
共识别出1094篇论文,本综述纳入了37项研究。对葡萄牙全科医生进行的调查中的回应率为56%(95%置信区间47 - 64%)。纳入研究之间存在显著异质性(I2 = 99%),但亚组分析并未解释这种异质性。
与其他已发表的研究一致,对葡萄牙全科医生进行的调查中的平均回应率为56%,各研究之间存在很大差异。纳入的任何研究中均未采用货币激励措施,而货币激励措施是提高回应率最有效的策略之一。