Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Comparison of response rates on invitation mode of a web-based survey on influenza vaccine adverse events among healthcare workers: a pilot study

Authors: Xiaochen Tai, Alanna M. Smith, Allison J. McGeer, Eve Dubé, Dorothy Linn Holness, Kevin Katz, Linda McGillis Hall, Shelly A. McNeil, Jeff Powis, Brenda L. Coleman

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Web-based surveys have become increasingly popular but response rates are low and may be prone to selection bias. How people are invited to participate may impact response rates and needs further study as previous evidence is contradictory. The purpose of this study was to determine whether response to a web-based survey of healthcare workers would be higher with a posted or an emailed invitation. We also report results of the pilot study, which aims to estimate the percentage of adults vaccinated against influenza who report recurrent systemic adverse events (the same systemic adverse event occurring successively following receipt of influenza vaccines).

Methods

The pilot study was conducted in November 2016 in Toronto, Canada. Members of a registry of adults (18 years and older and predominantly healthcare workers) who volunteered to receive information regarding future studies about influenza were randomly assigned to receive either an email or postal invitation to complete a web-based survey regarding influenza vaccinations. Non-respondents received one reminder using the same mode of contact as their original invitation.

Results

The overall response rate was higher for those sent the invitation by email (34.8%) than by post (25.8%; p < 0.001) and for older versus younger participants (ptrend < 0.001). Of those who responded, 387/401 had been vaccinated against influenza at least once since adulthood. Of those responding to the question, 70/386 (18.1%) reported a systemic adverse event after their most recent influenza vaccine including 22 (5.7%) who reported a recurring systemic event. Systemic adverse events were reported more often by males 18–49 years old than by other groups (p = 0.01). Recurrent systemic adverse events were similar by age and sex with muscle ache being the most commonly reported recurrent reaction. More respondents who reported only a local adverse event (93.1%) planned to be vaccinated again next year than those with a systemic adverse event (69.7%; p = 0.04).

Conclusions

In this convenience sample of registry volunteers, response rates were generally low, but were higher for the emailed than posted invitations and for older than younger adults.
Literature
1.
Reinisch JF, Yu DC, Li WY. Getting a valid survey response from 662 plastic surgeons in the 21st century. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(1):3–5.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Dykema J, Jones NR, Piche T, Stevenson J. Surveying clinicians by web: current issues in design and administration. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(3):352–81.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hardigan PC, Succar CT, Fleisher JM. An analysis of response rate and economic costs between mail and web-based surveys among practicing dentists: a randomized trial. J Community Health. 2012;37(2):383–94.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sinclair M, O'Toole J, Malawaraarachchi M, Leder K. Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Duffett M, Burns KE, Adhikari NK, Arnold DM, Lauzier F, Kho ME, Meade MO, Hayani O, Koo K, Choong K, et al. Quality of reporting of surveys in critical care journals: a methodologic review. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(2):441–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dykema J, Stevenson J, Klein L, Kim Y, Day B. Effects of e-mailed versus mailed invitations and incentives on response rates, data quality, and costs in a web survey of university faculty. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2012;31(3):359–70.CrossRef
7.
Bandilla W, Couper MP, Kaczmirek L. The effectiveness of mailed invitations for web surveys and the representativeness of mixed-mode versus internet-only samples. Surv Pract. 2014;7(4):9.CrossRef
8.
Bandilla W, Couper MP, Kaczmirek L. The mode of invitation for web surveys. Surv Pract. 2012;5(3)
9.
Millar MM, Dillman DA. Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opin Q. 2011;75(2):249–69.CrossRef
10.
Guo Y, Kopec JA, Cibere J, Li LC, Goldsmith CH. Population survey features and response rates: a randomized experiment. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(8):1422–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Hardigan PC, Popovici I, Carvajal MJ. Response rate, response time, and economic costs of survey research: a randomized trial of practicing pharmacists. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2016;12(1):141–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
McCabe SE, Couper MP, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ. Comparison of web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance use: evidence for minimal mode effects. Addict Behav. 2006;31(1):162–8.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Whitehead L. Methodological issues in internet-mediated research: a randomized comparison of internet versus mailed questionnaires. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
McMaster HS, LeardMann CA, Speigle S, Dillman DA. Millennium cohort family study T: an experimental comparison of web-push vs. paper-only survey procedures for conducting an in-depth health survey of military spouses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Porter SR, Whitcomb ME. Mixed-mode contacts in web surveys: paper is not necessarily better. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(4):635–48.CrossRef
16.
Birnholtz JP, Horn DB, Finholt TA, Bae SJ. The effects of cash, electronic, and paper gift certificates as respondent incentives for a web-based survey of technologically sophisticated respondents. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2004;22(3):355–62.CrossRef
17.
Kaplowitz MD, Lupi F, Couper MP, Thorp L. The effect of invitation design on web survey response rates. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2012;30(3):339–49.CrossRef
18.
National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Statement on seasonal influenza vaccine for 2013–2014. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2013;39:1–37.
19.
Ahmed F, Lindley MC, Allred N, Weinbaum CM, Grohskopf L. Effect of influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel on morbidity and mortality among patients: systematic review and grading of evidence. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;58(1):50–7.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Dubé E, Gagnon D, Kiely M, Defay F, Guay M, Boulianne N, Sauvageau C, Landry M, Turmel B, Markowski F. Seasonal influenza vaccination uptake in Quebec, Canada, 2 years after the influenza a (H1N1) pandemic. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(5):e55-e59.CrossRef
21.
22.
23.
Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Libr. 2014;
24.
Nichol KL, Hauge M. Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18(3):189–94.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Feemster KA, Prasad P, Smith MJ, Feudtner C, Caplan A, Offit P, Coffin SE. Employee designation and health care worker support of an influenza vaccine mandate at a large pediatric tertiary care hospital. Vaccine. 2011;29(9):1762–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Opel DJ, Mangione-Smith R, Taylor JA, Korfiatis C, Wiese C, Catz S, Martin DP. Development of a survey to identify vaccine-hesitant parents: the parent attitudes about childhood vaccines survey. Hum Vaccin. 2011;7(4):419–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
AAPOR. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. In: American association for public opinion research rep; 2015.
28.
British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. Adverse events following immunization. In: Communicable Disease Control Manual. Edited by Immunization Prgrams and Vaccine Preventable Disease Service. Vancouver, BC: BC Centre for Disease Control; 2016. p. 40.
29.
CIHI. Canada's health care providers. In: Canadian institute for health information; 2007.
30.
McPeake J, Bateson M, O'Neill A. Electronic surveys: how to maximise success. Nurse Res. 2014;21(3):24–6.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Miller AL, Lambert AD. Open-ended survey questions: item nonresponse nightmare or qualitative data dream? Surv Pract. 2014;7(5)
32.
Dutwin D, Lavrakas P. Trends in telephone outcomes, 2008-2015. Surv Pract. 2016;9(3)
33.
Shih T-H, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods. 2008;20(3):249–71.CrossRef
34.
Newberry MG, Israel GD. Comparing two web/mail mixed-mode contact protocols to a Unimode mail survey. Field Methods. 2017;29(3):281–98.CrossRef
35.
Yetter G, Capaccioli K. Differences in responses to web and paper surveys among school professionals. Behav Res Methods. 2010;42(1):266–72.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Vellozzi C, Burwen DR, Dobardzic A, Ball R, Walton K, Haber P. Safety of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in adults: background for pandemic influenza vaccine safety monitoring. Vaccine. 2009;27(15):2114–20.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bettinger JA, Rouleau I, Gariepy MC, Bowie WR, Valiquette L, Vanderkooi OG, Kellner JD, Coleman BL, McNeil SA, McCarthy A, et al. Successful methodology for large-scale surveillance of severe events following influenza vaccination in Canada, 2011 and 2012. Euro Surveill. 2015;20(29):21189.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Aguilar-Diaz Fdel C, Jimenez-Corona ME, Ponce-de-Leon-Rosales S. Influenza vaccine and healthcare workers. Arch Med Res. 2011;42(8):652–7.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Asma S, Akan H, Uysal Y, Pocan AG, Sucakli MH, Yengil E, Gereklioglu C, Korur A, Bashan I, Erdogan AF, et al. Factors effecting influenza vaccination uptake among health care workers: a multi-center cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Kara A, Devrim I, Celik T, Akca T, Tezer H, Simsek OP, Kutluk T, Kale G, Secmeer G. Influenza vaccine adverse event and effect on acceptability in pediatric residents. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2007;60(6):387.PubMed
41.
Ryan M, MacLeod A. A comparison of adverse effects of two influenza vaccines, and the influence on subsequent uptake. JR Coll Gen Pract. 1984;34(265):442–4.
Metadata
Title
Comparison of response rates on invitation mode of a web-based survey on influenza vaccine adverse events among healthcare workers: a pilot study
Authors
Xiaochen Tai
Alanna M. Smith
Allison J. McGeer
Eve Dubé
Dorothy Linn Holness
Kevin Katz
Linda McGillis Hall
Shelly A. McNeil
Jeff Powis
Brenda L. Coleman
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0524-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Comparing performance between log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models for estimating risk ratios under model misspecification

Research article

Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study: a clinical audit on primary care performance variability in COPD care

Correction

Correction to: joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data: a review of reporting quality with a view to meta-analysis

Research article

Bonferroni-Holm and permutation tests to compare health data: methodological and applicative issues

Research article

Reliability in evaluator-based tests: using simulation-constructed models to determine contextually relevant agreement thresholds

Research article

Application of the dyadic data analysis in behavioral medicine research: marital satisfaction and anxiety in infertile couples