Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative?

Braithwaite, Dejana, Emery, Jon, de Lusignan, Simon, Sutton, Stephen·2003·Family Practice

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether Internet-based surveys of health professionals can provide a valid alternative to traditional survey methods. METHODS: (i) Systematic review of published Internet-based surveys of health professionals focusing on criteria of external validity, specifically sample representativeness and response bias. (ii) Internet-based survey of GPs, exploring attitudes about using an Internet-based decision support system for the management of familial cancer. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 17 Internet-based surveys of health professionals. Whilst most studies sampled from professional e-directories, some studies drew on unknown denominator populations by placing survey questionnaires on open web sites or electronic discussion groups. Twelve studies reported response rates, which ranged from nine to 94%. Sending follow-up reminders resulted in a substantial increase in response rates. In our own survey of GPs, a total of 268 GPs participated (adjusted response rate = 52.4%) after five e-mail reminders. A further 72 GPs responded to a brief telephone survey of non-respondents. Respondents to the Internet survey were more likely to be male and had significantly greater intentions to use Internet-based decision support than non-respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based surveys provide an attractive alternative to postal and telephone surveys of health professionals, but they raise important technical and methodological issues which should be carefully considered before widespread implementation. The major obstacle is external validity, and specifically how to obtain a representative sample and adequate response rate. Controlled access to a national list of NHSnet e-mail addresses of health professionals could provide a solution.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cmg509

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 474

Metadata

Authors
Braithwaite, D., Emery, J., de Lusignan, S., & Sutton, S.
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2003-10
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
545-551
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2125172680
Cited by
474
References
1
FWCI
46.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/fampra/cmg509
The paper
Braithwaite, D., Emery, J., de Lusignan, S., & Sutton, S. (2003). Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Family Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmg509

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.