Cited by 203Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

Incentive and Reminder Strategies to Improve Response Rate for Internet-Based Physician Surveys: A Randomized Experiment

Open access
Cook, David A, Wittich, Christopher M, Daniels, Wendlyn L, West, Colin P, Harris, Ann M, Beebe, Timothy J·2016·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most research on how to enhance response rates in physician surveys has been done using paper surveys. Uncertainties remain regarding how to enhance response rates in Internet-based surveys. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a low-cost nonmonetary incentive and paper mail reminders (formal letter and postcard) on response rates in Internet-based physician surveys. METHODS: We executed a factorial-design randomized experiment while conducting a nationally representative Internet-based physician survey. We invited 3966 physicians (randomly selected from a commercial database of all licensed US physicians) via email to complete an Internet-based survey. We used 2 randomly assigned email messages: one message offered a book upon survey completion, whereas the other did not mention the book but was otherwise identical. All nonrespondents received several email reminders. Some physicians were further assigned at random to receive 1 reminder via paper mail (either a postcard or a letter) or no paper reminder. The primary outcome of this study was the survey response rate. RESULTS: Of the 3966 physicians who were invited, 451 (11.4%) responded to at least one survey question and 336 (8.5%) completed the entire survey. Of those who were offered a book, 345/2973 (11.6%) responded compared with 106/993 (10.7%) who were not offered a book (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.38, P=.42). Regarding the paper mail reminder, 168/1572 (10.7%) letter recipients, 148/1561 (9.5%) postcard recipients, and 69/767 (9.0%) email-only recipients responded (P=.35). The response rate for those receiving letters or postcards was similar (odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.44, P=.26). CONCLUSIONS: Offering a modest nonmonetary incentive and sending a paper reminder did not improve survey response rate. Further research on how to enhance response rates in Internet-based physician surveys is needed.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.6318

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • The survey response rate was 29.2%, in line with reported response rates of internet or phone-based surveys.

    “However, the survey response rate was 29.2%, which is in line with reported response rates of the internet or phone-based surveys [57].”

    From Life Experiences in Neuromuscular Tracheotomized Patients in Times of Covid-19 (2023) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Discussion (Limitations; page unavailable) reports that response rates below 20% are not uncommon in Internet surveys of physicians, lending some support to the comparison with Internet surveys. It gives no comparable rate for phone surveys and does not establish that 29.2% is typical of either mode. The 29.2% appears to be the citing authors’ own survey result, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 4

  1. [23]Thomas M Rogers R Maclean R Collecting data from physicians via web-based surveys: recommendations for improving response rates The Internet Journal of Medical Informatics 2002 1 1 1 6
  2. [25]VanGeest J Beebe T Johnson T Johnson T Surveys of Physicians Handbook of Survey Methods 2014 Hoboken, NJ John Wiley & Sons, Inc 515 543
  3. [33]Committee on Planning a Continuing Health Care Professional Education Institute Board on Health Care Services Institute of Medicine Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions 2010 Washington, DC The National Academies Press
  4. [37]Göritz AS Incentives in Web Studies: Methodological Issues and a Review International Journal of Internet Science 2006 1 58 70

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cook, D. A., Wittich, C. M., Daniels, W. L., West, C. P., Harris, A. M., & Beebe, T. J.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Cook, David A
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2016-09-16
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
e244
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2519880746
Cited by
203
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
50.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
survey response rates, internet-based survey, physician survey, non-monetary incentives, email reminders, survey nonresponse
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Reminder Systems, Internet

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