scholarly journals Delivery of the research participant perception survey through the patient portal

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Issis J. Kelly-Pumarol ◽  
Perrin Q. Henderson ◽  
Julia T. Rushing ◽  
Joseph E. Andrews ◽  
Rhonda G. Kost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Research Participant ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Participant Perception ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Perception Survey ◽  
Research Studies

IntroductionThe patient portal may be an effective method for administering surveys regarding participant research experiences but has not been systematically studied.MethodsWe evaluated 4 methods of delivering a research participant perception survey: mailing, phone, email, and patient portal. Participants of research studies were identified (n=4013) and 800 were randomly selected to receive a survey, 200 for each method. Outcomes included response rate, survey completeness, and cost.ResultsAmong those aged <65 years, response rates did not differ between mail, phone, and patient portal (22%, 29%, 30%,p>0.07). Among these methods, the patient portal was the lowest-cost option. Response rates were significantly lower using email (10%,p<0.01), the lowest-cost option. In contrast, among those aged 65+ years, mail was superior to the electronic methods (p<0.02).ConclusionsThe patient portal was among the most effective ways to reach research participants, and was less expensive than surveys administered by mail or telephone.

scholarly journals Impact of survey length and compensation on validity, reliability, and sample characteristics for Ultrashort-, Short-, and Long-Research Participant Perception Surveys

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhonda G. Kost ◽  
Joel Correa da Rosa
Keyword(s):  
Research Participant ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Completion Rates ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Survey Length ◽  
Sample Characteristics ◽  
Participant Perception ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Sample Age ◽  
Perception Survey

IntroductionThe validated long Research Participant Perception Survey (RPPS-Long) elicits valuable data at modest response rates.MethodsTo address this limitation, we developed shorter RPPS-Ultrashort and RPPS-Short versions, fielded them with the RPPS-Long to a random sample of a national research volunteer registry, and assessed response and completion rates, test/retest reliability, and demographics.ResultsIn total, 2228 eligible registry members received survey links. Response rates were 64% (RPPS-Ultrashort), 63% (RPPS-Short), and 51% (RPPS-Long), respectively (p<0.001). Completion rates were 63%, 54%, and 37%, respectively (p<0.001). All surveys were reliable with Cronbach α=0.81, 0.84, and 0.87, respectively. Retest reliability was highest for RPPS-short (κ=0.85). Provision of compensation increased RPPS-short completion rate from 54% to 71% (p<0.001). Compensated respondents were younger (p<0.001), with greater minority representation (p=0.03).ConclusionsShorter surveys were reliable and produced higher response and completion rates then long surveys. Compensation further increased completion rates and shifted sample age and race profiles.

scholarly journals Impact of Pharmaceutical Industry Versus University Sponsorship on Survey Response: A Randomized Trial among Canadian Hepatitis C Care Providers

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P Myers ◽  
Abdel Aziz M Shaheen ◽  
Samuel S Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
To Receive

BACKGROUND: Surveys originating from universities appear to have higher response rates than those from commercial sources. In light of the growing scrutiny placed on physician-industry relations, the present study aimed to determine the impact of the pharmaceutical industry versus university sponsorship on response to a postal survey completed by Canadian hepatitis C virus (HCV) care providers.PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present controlled trial, 229 physicians and nurses involved in HCV treatment were randomly assigned to receive a survey with sponsorship from a pharmaceutical company or university. The primary outcome was the proportion of completed surveys returned. The secondary outcomes included the response rate after the first mailing and the number of days taken to respond.RESULTS: One hundred fifteen participants were randomly assigned to receive the pharmaceutical industry survey and 114 were assigned to receive the university survey. The final response rate was 72.9% (167 of 229), which did not differ between the industry and university groups (RR=0.91; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07). Nurses (OR=2.20; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.48) and participants from an academic centre (OR=3.14; 95% CI 1.64 to 6.00) were more likely to respond. The response rate after the first mailing (RR=0.85; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07) and the median number of days taken to respond (21 days in both groups; P=0.20) did not differ between the industry and university groups.CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship does not appear to negatively impact response rates to a postal survey completed by Canadian HCV care providers.

Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals

Field Methods ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss ◽  
Jon C. Tilburt ◽  
Kandace Lackore ◽  
Sarah Jenkins ◽  
Katherine James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Porous Membrane ◽  
Item Nonresponse ◽  
Unit Nonresponse ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Nursing Professionals ◽  
To Receive

Surveys are an important tool for assessing physician and nursing professionals’ practice patterns and guideline adherence. Obtaining quality survey data consisting of low item and unit nonresponse remains a persistent challenge in these populations. We tested the relative impact of two envelope types (padded vs. priority mail) on unit and item nonresponse in a survey of Minnesota health care workers. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey in one of two envelope types: a padded 8.5′′ × 11′′ envelope or a similarly sized priority mail envelope. After the first mailing, the response rate was 53.9% and did not differ across envelope conditions. Females and RNs were more likely to respond to the priority envelope than the padded envelope, but this finding did not hold in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in item nonresponse across the two envelope conditions. It may be that our two approaches were not enough to permeate the semi-porous membrane of gatekeeping that has been posited as a driver of low physician survey response rates relative to those observed in the general population. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that packaging may matter for some populations and not others.

scholarly journals Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-249
Author(s):  
Sarah Cook ◽  
Stephanie Mayers ◽  
Kathryn Goggins ◽  
David Schlundt ◽  
Kemberlee Bonnet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
College Education ◽  
Research Participant ◽  
Stakeholder Group ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Study Results ◽  
To Receive

AbstractIntroduction:Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group.Methods:Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants’ preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms.Results:Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results.Conclusion:Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.

Survey Return Rates as a Function of Priority versus First-Class Mailing

2006 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 496-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiane Brems ◽  
Mark E. Johnson ◽  
Teddy Warner ◽  
Laura Weiss Roberts
Keyword(s):  
New Mexico ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
The Other ◽  
Return Rates ◽  
Behavioral Healthcare ◽  
Signal Significance ◽  
Resultant Increase ◽  
To Receive

Prior research indicates survey procedures that signal significance and individualized mailings have higher response rates. Thus, it was hypothesized that surveys delivered via Priority mail would result in higher return rates than surveys delivered via First-Class. 260 surveys were sent to individuals randomly selected from lists of licensed physical and behavioral healthcare providers in Alaska and New Mexico. Half of the selected individuals were assigned randomly to receive mailings using Priority mail, the other half received First-Class mailings. Return rate was 39% for First-Class and 35% for Priority. Z tests of proportion indicated no statistically significant differences between methods. Given increased costs with no resultant increase in response rate, sending surveys to potential participants via Priority mail does not appear warranted.

Response-Rate Differences and Response-Enhancement Effects by Population Type

1998 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 336-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy E. Green ◽  
Judith A. Boser ◽  
Susan R. Hutchinson
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Survey Research ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Type Analysis ◽  
Population Type ◽  
Response Enhancement ◽  
Population Effects ◽  
Research Studies

A meta-analysis of 193 survey research studies examined differences in response rate by population type. Analysis suggests higher response rates may be expected from surveys of students and educators than from surveys of the general population. Effects of treatments intended to affect response rate differed minimally by type of population.

A $2 Bill or Two $1 Bills: An Experiment that Challenges Standard Protocol

Field Methods ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-240
Author(s):  
Sarah Mills
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Mail Survey ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Survey Response ◽  
The Other ◽  
Standard Protocol ◽  
Survey Response Rate ◽  
Survey Participation ◽  
To Receive

The $2 bill is commonly used as a prepaid incentive in survey administration. Despite the widespread use of this incentive, there is no peer-reviewed research into how providing a single $2 bill rather than two $1 bills affects survey response rate. The results are from a mail survey of 2,970 rural landowners in Michigan with identical survey protocols. Half were randomly assigned to receive a single $2 bill and the other half to receive two $1 bills accompanying the questionnaire. I found no statistical difference in the response rates of the two groups. While there may be logistical advantages to using a single $2 bill compared to two $1 bills, this research suggests that the $2 bill is not more effective at inducing survey participation.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund Juszczak ◽  
Oliver Hewer ◽  
Christopher Partlett ◽  
Madeleine Hurd ◽  
Vasha Bari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Multiple Birth ◽  
Questionnaire Response ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Premature Babies ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty. Methods Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). Interventions: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation. Results Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return. Conclusions An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns. Trial registration SIFT (ISRCTN76463425). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf). Registered on June 27, 2016.

scholarly journals The rat medial frontal cortex controls pace, but not breakpoint, in a progressive ratio licking task

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kyra Swanson ◽  
Hannah Goldbach ◽  
Mark Laubach
Keyword(s):  
Frontal Cortex ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Sucrose Concentration ◽  
Progressive Ratio ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Medial Frontal Cortex ◽  
Behavioral Measures ◽  
Outcome Monitoring ◽  
Contrast Response ◽  
To Receive

The medial frontal cortex (MFC) is crucial for selecting actions and evaluating their outcomes. Outcome monitoring may be triggered by the rostral part of MFC, which contains neurons that are modulated by reward consumption and is necessary for the expression of relative reward value. Here, we examined if the MFC further has a role in the control of instrumental licking. We used a progressive ratio licking task in which rats had to make increasing numbers of licks to receive liquid sucrose rewards. We determined what measures of progressive ratio performance are sensitive to value by testing rats with rewards containing 0-16% sucrose. We found some measures (e.g. breakpoint, number of licking bouts) were sensitive to sucrose concentration and others (e.g. response rate, duration of licking bouts) were not. Then, we examined the effects of reversibly inactivating rostral (medial orbital) and caudal (prelimbic) parts of the MFC. We were surprised to find that inactivation had no effects on measures associated with value (e.g. breakpoint). Instead, inactivation altered behavioral measures associated with the pace of task performance (response rate and time to break). These effects depended on where inactivations were made. Response rates increased and the time to break decreased when the caudal prelimbic area was inactivated. By contrast, response rates decreased and the time to break increased when the rostral medial orbital cortex was inactivated. Our findings suggest that the medial frontal cortex has a role in maintaining task engagement, but not in the motivational control of action, in the progressive ratio licking task.

scholarly journals Randomized Phase II Window Trial of Two Schedules of Irinotecan With Vincristine in Patients With First Relapse or Progression of Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (30) ◽  
pp. 4658-4663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Mascarenhas ◽  
Elizabeth R. Lyden ◽  
Philip P. Breitfeld ◽  
David O. Walterhouse ◽  
Sarah S. Donaldson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Disease Response ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
One Year ◽  
Multiagent Chemotherapy ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Overall Survival Rates

Purpose To compare response rates for two schedules of irinotecan with vincristine in patients with rhabdomyosarcoma at first relapse or disease progression. Patients and Methods Patients with first relapse or progression of rhabdomyosarcoma and an unfavorable prognosis were randomly assigned to one of two treatment schedules of irinotecan with vincristine: regimen 1A included irinotecan 20 mg/m2/d intravenously for 5 days at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 with vincristine 1.5 mg/m2 administered intravenously on day 1 of weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5; regimen 1B included irinotecan 50 mg/m2/d intravenously for 5 days at weeks 1 and 4 with vincristine as in regimen 1A. Disease response was assessed at week 6. Those with responsive disease continued to receive 44 weeks of multiagent chemotherapy that incorporated the assigned irinotecan-vincristine regimen. Results Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned (1A, 45; 1B, 47). Response could be assessed in 89 patients (1A, 42; 1B, 47). There were five complete responses and six partial responses on regimen 1A (response rate, 26%; 95% CI, 16% to 42%) and 17 partial responses on regimen 1B (response rate, 37%; 95% CI, 25% to 51%; P = .36). Neutropenia was less common on regimen 1A (P = .04). One-year failure-free and overall survival rates for regimen 1A were 37% (95% CI, 23% to 51%) and 55% (95% CI, 39% to 69%), respectively, and for 1B, they were 38% (95% CI, 25% to 53%) and 60% (95% CI, 44% to 72%). Conclusion There was no difference in the response rates between the two irinotecan-vincristine schedules. We recommend the shorter, more convenient regimen (1B) for further investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document