Institute of General Practice (ifam), Centre for Health and Society (chs), Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Moorenstr. 5, Building 17.11, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Department of Applied Health Sciences (DAG), Hochschule für Gesundheit, University of Applied Sciences, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany.
BMC Res Notes. 2022 Jan 10;15(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05895-z.
Health scientists strive for a smooth recruitment of physicians for research projects like surveys. Teaching physicians are an easy to approach population that is already affiliated with a university by teaching students in their practice. How do response rates compare between a convenient online survey among teaching physicians and an elaborate postal survey in a random sample of unknown physicians? Data from the TMI-GP study on the use of memory tests in general practice were used.
Physicians in the random sample responded to the postal survey more often than teaching physicians to the online survey (59.5% vs. 18.9%; odds ratio 7.06; 95% confidence interval 4.81-10.37; p < 0.001). Although it is unclear whether the sample, the survey mode (online vs. postal) or both account for this effect, it is noteworthy that even in such a convenience sample of known/committed physicians, an adequate response rate could not be reached without a tailored and elaborated survey technique. Responders in the two samples were comparable regarding a content-related item (use of memory tests; Χ (df = 1) = 3.07; p = 0.080).
卫生科学工作者致力于顺利招募医生参与研究项目，如调查。教学医生是一个很容易接触到的人群，他们通过在实践中教授学生，已经与大学有了联系。在教学医生中进行便捷的在线调查和在随机抽取的未知医生中进行精心设计的邮寄调查，其回应率有何不同？本研究使用了 TMI-GP 研究中关于一般实践中使用记忆测试的数据。
随机抽样的医生对邮寄调查的回应率高于教学医生对在线调查的回应率（59.5%比 18.9%；优势比 7.06；95%置信区间 4.81-10.37；p<0.001）。尽管尚不清楚是样本、调查模式（在线与邮寄）还是两者都导致了这种效果，但值得注意的是，即使在这样一个已知/承诺的医生便利样本中，如果不采用定制和精心设计的调查技术，也无法达到足够的回应率。两个样本中的回应者在一个与内容相关的项目（使用记忆测试）上具有可比性（Χ（df=1）=3.07；p=0.080）。
