Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 695

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methodologies for Improving Response Rates in Surveys of Physicians: A Systematic Review

VanGeest, Jonathan B., Johnson, Timothy P., Welch, Verna L.·2007·Evaluation & the Health Professions

Abstract

Although physician surveys are an important tool in health services and policy research, they are often characterized by low response rates. The authors conducted a systematic review of 66 published reports of efforts to improve response rates to physician surveys. Two general strategies were explored in this literature: incentive and design-based approaches. Even small financial incentives were found to be effective in improving physician response. Token nonmonetary incentives were much less effective. In terms of design strategies, postal and telephone strategies have generally been more successful than have fax or Web-based approaches, with evidence also supporting use of mixed-mode surveys in this population. In addition, use of first-class stamps on return envelopes and questionnaires designed to be brief, personalized, and endorsed by legitimizing professional associations were also more likely to be successful. Researchers should continue to implement design strategies that have been documented to improve the survey response of physicians.

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 · 10.1177/0163278707307899

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 695

Metadata

Authors
VanGeest, J. B., Johnson, T. P., & Welch, V. L.
Venue
Evaluation & the Health Professions
Published
2007-12
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
303-321
ISSN
  • 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3918
OpenAlex
W2146186573
Cited by
695
References
2
FWCI
68.87
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

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.