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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

The effectiveness of recruitment strategies on general practitioner’s survey response rates – a systematic review

Authors: Sabrina Winona Pit, Tham Vo, Sagun Pyakurel

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Low survey response rates in general practice are common and lead to loss of power, selection bias, unexpected budgetary constraints and time delays in research projects.

Methods

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies aimed at increasing survey response rates among GPs.
Design: Systematic review.
Search methods: MEDLINE (OVIDSP, 1948-2012), EMBASE (OVIDSP, 1980-2012), Evidence Based Medicine Reviews (OVIDSP, 2012) and references of included papers were searched. Major search terms included GPs, recruitment strategies, response rates, and randomised controlled trials (RCT).
Selection criteria: Cluster RCTs, RCTs and factorial trial designs that evaluate recruitment strategies aimed at increasing GP survey response rates.
Data collection and analysis: Abstracts identified by the search strategy were reviewed and relevant articles were retrieved. Each full-text publication was examined to determine whether it met the predetermined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and study quality was assessed by using predetermined checklists.

Results

Monetary and nonmonetary incentives were more effective than no incentive with monetary incentives having a slightly bigger effect than nonmonetary incentives. Large incentives were more effective than small incentives, as were upfront monetary incentives compared to promised monetary incentives. Postal surveys were more effective than telephone or email surveys. One study demonstrated that sequentially mixed mode (online survey followed by a paper survey with a reminder) was more effective than an online survey or the combination of an online and paper survey sent similtaneously in the first mail out. Pre-contact with a phonecall from a peer, personalised packages, sending mail on Friday, and using registered mail also increased response rates in single studies. Pre-contact by letter or postcard almost reached statistical signficance.

Conclusions

GP survey response rates may improve by using the following strategies: monetary and nonmonetary incentives, larger incentives, upfront monetary incentives, postal surveys, pre-contact with a phonecall from a peer, personalised packages, sending mail on Friday, and using registered mail. Mail pre-contact may also improve response rates and have low costs. Improved reporting and further trials, including sequential mixed mode trials and social media, are required to determine the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on GPs' response rates to surveys.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Pit S: Improving Quality Use of Medicines for Older People in General Practice. A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. PhD Thesis. 2005, Newcastle: University of Newcastle
2.
VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL: Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007, 30 (4): 303-321. 10.1177/0163278707307899.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Creavin ST, Creavin AL, Mallen CD: Do GPs respond to postal questionnaire surveys? A comprehensive review of primary care literature. Fam Pract. 2011, 28 (4): 461-467. 10.1093/fampra/cmr001.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Spaar A, Frey M, Turk A, Karrer W, Puhan MA: Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians’ perspective: a postal survey. BMC Med Res Meth. 2009, 9: 14-10.1186/1471-2288-9-14.CrossRef
5.
Hansen V, Pit SW, Honeyman P, Barclay L: Prolonging a sustainable working life among older rural GPs: solutions from the horse’s mouth. Rural Rem Health. 2013, 13 (2): 2369-
6.
Leathem CS, Cupples ME, O’Malley M, Houlihan A, Murphy AW, Smith SM: Identifying strategies to maximise recruitment and retention of practices and patients in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of an intervention to optimise secondary prevention for coronary heart disease in primary care. BMC Med Res Meth. 2009, 9 (1): 40-10.1186/1471-2288-9-40.CrossRef
7.
Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrom M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R, Mitchell E: Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010, 4: MR000013-doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5PubMed
8.
Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009, 3: MR000008-doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4PubMed
9.
de Leeuw E, Callegaro M, Hox J, Korendijk E, Lensvelt-Mulders G: The influence of advance letters on response in telephone surveys: a meta-analysis. Publ Opin Q. 2007, 71 (3): 413-443. 10.1093/poq/nfm014.CrossRef
10.
Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE: Maximising response to postal questionnaires–a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Meth. 2006, 6: 5-10.1186/1471-2288-6-5.CrossRef
11.
Deehan A, Templeton L, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J: The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study. Br J Gen Pract. 1997, 47 (415): 87-90.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Jepson C, Asch DA, Hershey JC, Ubel PA: In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58 (1): 103-105. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.004.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Gattellari M, Zwar N, Worthington JM: No difference demonstrated between faxed or mailed prenotification in promoting questionnaire response among family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012, 65 (5): 544-552. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.014.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kellerman SE, Herold J: Physician response to surveys: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001, 20 (1): 61-67. 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00258-0.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Edwards PJ, Cooper R, Wentz R, Fernandes J: Methods to influence the completeness of response to self-administered questionnaires (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, Art. No.: MR000015-doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000015.pub2, Issue 2
16.
Hoile EC, Free C, Edwards PJ, Felix LM: Methods to increase response rates for data collected by telephone (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009, Art. No.: MR000029-doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000029, Issue 3
17.
Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB: Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993, 46 (5): 423-429. 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-V.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Review Manager (RevMan): [Computer program]. Version 5.2. 2012, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration
19.
Schroll J, Moustgaard R, Gøtzsche P: Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in cochrane reviews: cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Meth. 2011, 11: 22-10.1186/1471-2288-11-22.CrossRef
20.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Group TP: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (6): e1000097-CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
de Leeuw ED, Hox JJ: I am not selling anything: 29 experiments in telephone introductions. Int J Publ Opin Res. 2004, 16 (4): 464-473. 10.1093/ijpor/edh040.CrossRef
22.
Rendell JM, Merritt RK, Geddes J: Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, MR000021-doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000021.pub3, 2
23.
Yu J, Cooper HY: A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal Market Res. 1983, 20 (No. 1): 36-44. 10.2307/3151410.CrossRef
24.
Scott A, Jeon S-H, Joyce CM, Humphreys JS, Kalb G, Witt J, Leahy A: A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Med Res Meth. 2011, 11: 126-10.1186/1471-2288-11-126.CrossRef
25.
Pit S, Hansen V, Ewald DP: A small unconditional non-financial incentive suggests an increase in survey response rates amongst older general practitioners (GPs): a randomised controlled trial study. BMC Fam Pract. 2013, 14: 108-10.1186/1471-2296-14-108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Asch DA, Christakis NA, Ubel PA: Conducting physician mail surveys on a limited budget: a randomized trial comparing bill versus $5 bill incentives. Med Care. 1998, 36 (1): 95-99. 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00011.CrossRefPubMed
27.
James KM, Ziegenfuss JY, Tilburt JC, Harris AM, Beebe TJ: Getting physicians to respond: the impact of incentive type and timing on physician survey response rates. Health Serv Res. 2011, 46 (1 Pt 1): 232-242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Everett SA, Price JH, Bedell AW, Telljohann SK: The effect of a monetary incentive in increasing the return rate of a survey to family physicians. Eval Health Prof. 1997, 20 (2): 207-214. 10.1177/016327879702000206.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Baron G, De Wals P, Milord F: Cost-effectiveness of a lottery for increasing physicians’ responses to a mail survey. Eval Health Prof. 2001, 24 (1): 47-52. 10.1177/01632780122034777.CrossRefPubMed
30.
McLaren B, Shelley J: Response rates of Victorian general practitioners to a mailed survey on miscarriage: randomised trial of a prize and two forms of introduction to the research. Aust New Zeal J Publ Health. 2000, 24 (4): 360-364. 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2000.tb01593.x.CrossRef
31.
Robertson J, Walkom EJ, McGettigan P: Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005, 14 (8): 571-577. 10.1002/pds.1126.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Thomson CE, Paterson-Brown S, Russell D, McCaldin D, Russell IT: Short report: encouraging GPs to complete postal questionnaires - one big prize or many small prizes? A randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract. 2004, 21 (6): 697-698. 10.1093/fampra/cmh620.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Ward J, Bruce T, Holt P, D’Este K, Sladden M: Labour-saving strategies to maintain survey response rates: a randomised trial. Aust New Zeal J Publ Health. 1998, 22 (3 Suppl): 394-396.CrossRef
34.
Drummond FJ, Sharp L, Carsin A-E, Kelleher T, Comber H: Questionnaire order significantly increased response to a postal survey sent to primary care physicians. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (2): 177-185. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.012.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Hocking JS, Lim MSC, Read T, Hellard M: Postal surveys of physicians gave superior response rates over telephone interviews in a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59 (5): 521-524. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.009.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Shosteck H, Fairweather WR: Physician response rates to mail and personal interview surveys. Publ Opin Q. 1979, 43 (2): 206-217. 10.1086/268512.CrossRef
37.
Seguin R, Godwin M, MacDonald S, McCall M: E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys. Can Fam Physician. 2004, 50: 414-419.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Pirotta M, Gunn J, Farish S, Karabatsos G: Primer postcard improves postal survey response rates. Aust New Zeal J Publ Health. 1999, 23 (2): 196-197. 10.1111/j.1467-842X.1999.tb01234.x.CrossRef
39.
Gupta L, Ward J, D’Este C: Differential effectiveness of telephone prompts by medical and nonmedical staff in increasing survey response rates: a randomised trial. Aust New Zeal J Publ Health. 1997, 21 (1): 98-99. 10.1111/j.1467-842X.1997.tb01662.x.CrossRef
40.
Bonevski B, Magin P, Horton G, Foster M, Girgis A: Response rates in GP surveys - trialling two recruitment strategies. Aust Fam Physician. 2011, 40 (6): 427-430.PubMed
41.
Akl EA, Gaddam S, Mustafa R, Wilson MC, Symons A, Grifasi A, McGuigan D, Schunemann HJ: The effects of tracking responses and the day of mailing on physician survey response rate: three randomized trials. PLoS One. 2011, 6 (2): e16942-10.1371/journal.pone.0016942.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J: Increasing response rates in physicians’ mail surveys: an experimental study. Am J Publ Health. 1989, 79 (5): 638-639. 10.2105/AJPH.79.5.638.CrossRef
43.
Olivarius NF, Andreasen AH: Day-of-the-week effect on doctors’ response to postal questionnaire. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1995, 13 (1): 65-67. 10.3109/02813439508996737.CrossRef
44.
Pedrana A, Hellard M, Giles M: Registered post achieved a higher response rate than normal mail–a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (9): 896-899. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.004.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The effectiveness of recruitment strategies on general practitioner’s survey response rates – a systematic review
Authors
Sabrina Winona Pit
Tham Vo
Sagun Pyakurel
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-76

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research article

Bias in the study of prediction of change: a Monte Carlo simulation study of the effects of selective attrition and inappropriate modeling of regression toward the mean

Correspondence

Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods

Research article

Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions

Research article

Enabling research in care homes: an evaluation of a national network of research ready care homes

Correspondence

Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies

Research article

Developing and validating risk prediction models in an individual participant data meta-analysis