Top

BMC Health Services Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Research article

International health policy survey in 11 countries: assessment of non-response bias in the Norwegian sample

Authors: Oyvind A Bjertnaes, Hilde H Iversen, Geir Bukholm

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2010

Abstract

Background

International health policy surveys are used to compare and evaluate health system performance, but little is known about the effects of non-response. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of non-response in the Norwegian part of the Commonwealth Fund international health policy survey in 2009.

Methods

As part of an international health policy survey in 2009 a cross-sectional survey was conducted in Norway among a representative sample of Norwegian general practitioners. 1 400 randomly selected GPs were sent a postal questionnaire including questions about the Norwegian health care system, the quality of the GPs' own practice and the cooperation with specialist health care. The survey included three postal reminders and a telephone follow-up of postal non-respondents. The main outcome measures were increase in response rate for each reminder, the effects of demographic and practice variables on response, the effects of non-response on survey estimates, and the cost-effectiveness of each reminder.

Results

After three postal reminders and one telephone follow-up, the response rate was 59.1%. Statistically significant differences between respondents and non-respondents were found for three variables; group vs. solo practice (p = 0.01), being a specialist or not (p < 0.001) and municipality centrality (least central vs. most central, p = 0.03). However, demographic and practice variables had little association with five outcome variables and the overall survey estimates changed little with additional reminders. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the final reminders was poor.

Conclusions

The response rate in the Norwegian survey was satisfactory, and the effect of non-response was small indicating adequate representativeness. The cost-effectiveness of the final reminders was poor. The Norwegian findings strengthen the international project, but restrictions in generalizability warrant further study in other countries.

McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, et al: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001, 5: 1-256.CrossRefPubMed

Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA: Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997, 50: 1129-1136. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1.CrossRefPubMed

Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR: Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res. 2001, 35: 1347-1355.PubMedPubMedCentral

Beebe TJ, Locke GR, Barnes SA, Davern ME, Anderson KJ: Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians. Health Serv Res. 2007, 42: 1219-1234. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00652.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Field TS, Cadoret CA, Brown ML, Ford M, Greene SM, Hill D, et al: Surveying physicians: do components of the "Total Design Approach" to optimizing survey response rates apply to physicians?. Med Care. 2002, 40: 596-605. 10.1097/00005650-200207000-00006.CrossRefPubMed

McFarlane E, Olmsted MG, Murphy J, Hill CA: Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians. Eval Health Prof. 2007, 30: 170-185. 10.1177/0163278707300632.CrossRefPubMed

Dillman DA: Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2000, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 2

Thorpe C, Ryan B, McLean SL, Burt A, Stewart M, Brown JB, et al: How to obtain excellent response rates when surveying physicians. Fam Pract. 2009, 26: 65-8. 10.1093/fampra/cmn097.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Cook JV, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP: Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009, 9: 160-10.1186/1472-6963-9-160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Barclay S, Todd C, Finlay I, Grande G, Wyatt P: Not another questionnaire! Maximizing the response rate, predicting non-response and assessing non-response bias in postal questionnaire studies of GPs. Fam Pract. 2002, 19: 105-111. 10.1093/fampra/19.1.105.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kaner EF, Haighton CA, McAvoy BR: So much post, so busy with practice - so, no time!: A telephone survey of general practitioners' reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys. Br J Gen Pract. 1998, 48: 1067-1069.PubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Sibbald B, Addington-Hall J, Brenneman D, Freeling P: Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract. 1994, 44: 297-300.PubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Templeton L, Deehan A, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J: Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter?. Br J Gen Pract. 1997, 47: 91-94.PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Bjertnaes OA, Garratt A, Botten G: Nonresponse bias and cost-effectiveness in a Norwegian survey of family physicians. Eval Health Prof. 2008, 31: 65-80. 10.1177/0163278707311874.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schoen C, Osborn R, Huynh PT, Doty M, Peugh J, Zapert K: On the front lines of care: primary care doctors' office systems, experiences, and views in seven countries. Health Aff. 2006, 25: w555-71. 10.1377/hlthaff.25.w555.CrossRef

17.

Schoen C, Osborn R, Doty MM, Squires D, Peugh J, Applebaum S: A survey of primary care physicians in eleven countries, 2009: Perspectives on care, costs, and experiences. Health Aff. 2009, 28: w1171-1183. 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1171.CrossRef

18.

Harris Interactive Inc: International health perspectives 2009: A survey of physicians in eleven countries. Methodology report. New York. 2009

19.

Bergk V, Gasse C, Schnell R, Haefeli WE: Mail surveys: Obsolescent model or valuable instrument in general practice research?. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2005, 135: 189-191.PubMed

20.

Sobal J, Ferentz KS: Comparing physicians responses to the first and second mailings of a questionnaire. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 1989, 12: 329-339. 10.1177/016327878901200307.CrossRef

21.

Guadagnoli E, Cunningham S: The effects of nonresponse and late response on a survey of physician attitudes. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 1989, 12: 318-328. 10.1177/016327878901200306.CrossRef

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/38/prepub

Title: International health policy survey in 11 countries: assessment of non-response bias in the Norwegian sample
Authors: Oyvind A Bjertnaes
Hilde H Iversen
Geir Bukholm
Publication date: 01-12-2010
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-38

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

International health policy survey in 11 countries: assessment of non-response bias in the Norwegian sample

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Mental health priorities in Vietnam: a mixed-methods analysis

General practitioners' opinions on how to improve treatment of mental disorders in primary health care. Interviews with one hundred Norwegian general practitioners

Policy maker and provider knowledge and attitudes regarding the provision of emergency contraceptive pills within Lao PDR

Using a population-based approach to prevent hepatocellular cancer in New South Wales, Australia: effects on health services utilisation

Opening the black box of quality improvement collaboratives: an Actor-Network theory approach

Supporting good practice in the provision of services to people with comorbid mental health and alcohol and other drug problems in Australia: describing key elements of good service models