Cited by 82Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesCensus and Population Estimation

Survey Methods to Optimize Response Rate in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Open access
Funkhouser, Ellen, Vellala, Kavya, Baltuck, Camille, Cacciato, Rita, Durand, Emily, McEdward, Deborah, Sowell, Ellen, Theisen, Sarah E. +2 more·2017·Evaluation & the Health Professions

Abstract

Surveys of health professionals typically have low response rates, and these rates have been decreasing in the recent years. We report on the methods used in a successful survey of dentist members of the National Dental Practice–Based Research Network. The objectives were to quantify the (1) increase in response rate associated with successive survey methods, (2) time to completion with each successive step, (3) contribution from the final method and personal contact, and (4) differences in response rate and mode of response by practice/practitioner characteristics. Dentist members of the network were mailed an invitation describing the study. Subsequently, up to six recruitment steps were followed: initial e-mail, two e-mail reminders at 2-week intervals, a third e-mail reminder with postal mailing a paper questionnaire, a second postal mailing of paper questionnaire, and staff follow-up. Of the 1,876 invited, 160 were deemed ineligible and 1,488 (87% of 1,716 eligible) completed the survey. Completion by step: initial e-mail, 35%; second e-mail, 15%; third e-mail, 7%; fourth e-mail/first paper, 11%; second paper, 15%; and staff follow-up, 16%. Overall, 76% completed the survey online and 24% on paper. Completion rates increased in absolute numbers and proportionally with later methods of recruitment. Participation rates varied little by practice/practitioner characteristics. Completion on paper was more likely by older dentists. Multiple methods of recruitment resulted in a high participation rate: Each step and method produced incremental increases with the final step producing the largest increase.

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 · 10.1177/0163278715625738

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Dillman DA 2007 Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide Hoboken, NJ John Wiley
  2. McFarlane E Olmsted MG Murphy J Hill CA 2006 Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians Paper presented at the May 2006 annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research Montreal, Quebec

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Funkhouser, E., Vellala, K., Baltuck, C., Cacciato, R., Durand, E., McEdward, D., Sowell, E., Theisen, S. E., Gilbert, G. H., & National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Westat (United States) (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • HealthPartners (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
Venue
Evaluation & the Health Professions
Published
2016-01-10
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
332-358
ISSN
  • 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3918
OpenAlex
W2338005780
Cited by
82
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
18.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evaluation & the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U19DE022516)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
Keywords
survey response rates, survey recruitment, email reminders, postal questionnaires, practice characteristics
MeSH terms
Dentists, Humans, Postal Service, Surveys and Questionnaires, Time Factors, Electronic Mail

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