scholarly journals Effect of prenotification on the response rate of a postal survey of emergency physicians: a randomised, controlled, assessor-blind trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e052843
Author(s):  
Michael Hickey ◽  
Lauralyn McIntyre ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Kasim Abdulaziz ◽  
Krishan Yadav ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
National Medical ◽  
Lower Response Rate ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

ObjectivesResponse rates to physician surveys are typically low. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a prenotification letter on the response rate of a postal survey of emergency physicians.DesignThis was a substudy of a national, cross-sectional postal survey sent to emergency physicians in Canada. We randomised participants to either receive a postal prenotification letter prior to the survey, or to no prenotification letter.ParticipantsA random sample of 500 emergency physicians in Canada. Participants were selected from the Canadian Medical Directory, a national medical directory which lists more than 99% of practising physicians in Canada.InterventionsUsing computer-generated randomisation, physicians were randomised in a concealed fashion to receive a prenotification letter approximately 1 week prior to the survey, or to not receive a prenotification letter. All physicians received an unconditional incentive of a $3 coffee card with the survey instrument. In both groups, non-respondents were sent reminder surveys approximately every 14 days and a special contact using Xpresspost during the final contact attempt.OutcomeThe primary outcome was the survey response rate.Results201 of 447 eligible physicians returned the survey (45.0%). Of 231 eligible physicians contacted in the prenotification group, 80 (34.6%) returned the survey and among 237 eligible physicians contacted in the no-prenotification group, 121 (51.1%) returned the survey (absolute difference in proportions 16.5%, 95% CI 2.5 to 30.5, p=0.01).ConclusionInclusion of a prenotification letter resulted in a lower response rate in this postal survey of emergency physicians. Given the added costs, time and effort required to send a prenotification letter, this study suggests that it may be more effective to omit the prenotification letter in physician postal surveys.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of SMS messaging for diarrhoea measurement: a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Trevor Titus Rego ◽  
Samuel Watson ◽  
Philbert Ishengoma ◽  
Philemon Langat ◽  
Hezekiah Pireh Otieno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Lower Response ◽  
Lower Response Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Text messaging systems are used to collect data on symptom prevalence. Using a text messaging system, we evaluated the effects of question load, question frequency, and financial incentive on response rates and reported infant diarrhoea rates in an infant diarrhoea survey. Methods We performed a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial of an SMS surveying system for infant diarrhoea surveillance with treatments: financial incentive (yes/no), question load (1-question/3-question), and questioning frequency (daily/fortnightly). Participants progressed through all treatment combinations over eight two-week rounds. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regressions to determine the impacts of the treatments on the response rates and reported diarrhoea rates. Attitudes were explored through qualitative interviews. Results For the 141 participants, the mean response rate was 47%. In terms of percentage point differences (ppd), daily questioning was associated with a lower response rate than fortnightly (-1·2[95%CI:-4·9,2·5]); high (3-question) question loads were associated with a lower response rate than low (1-question) question loads (-7·0[95%CI:-10·8,-3·1]); and financial incentivisation was associated with a higher response rate than no financial incentivisation (6·4[95%CI:2·6,10·2]). The mean two-week diarrhoea rate was 36·4%. Daily questioning was associated with a higher reported diarrhoea rate than fortnightly (29·9[95%CI:22·8,36·9]); with little evidence for impact by incentivisation or question load. Conclusions Close to half of all participants responded to the SMS survey. Daily questioning evoked a statistically higher rate of reported diarrhoea, while financial incentivisation and low (1-question) question loads evoked higher response rates than no incentive and high (3-question) question loads respectively. Trial Registration The protocol was registered on ISRCTN on the 20 th of March 2019 under number ISRCTN11410773 .

scholarly journals Data-sharing recommendations in biomedical journals and randomised controlled trials: an audit of journals following the ICMJE recommendations

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e038887
Author(s):  
Maximilian Siebert ◽  
Jeanne Fabiola Gaba ◽  
Laura Caquelin ◽  
Henri Gouraud ◽  
Alain Dupuy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo explore the implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data-sharing policy which came into force on 1 July 2018 by ICMJE-member journals and by ICMJE-affiliated journals declaring they follow the ICMJE recommendations.DesignA cross-sectional survey of data-sharing policies in 2018 on journal websites and in data-sharing statements in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).SettingICMJE website; PubMed/Medline.Eligibility criteriaICMJE-member journals and 489 ICMJE-affiliated journals that published an RCT in 2018, had an accessible online website and were not considered as predatory journals according to Beall’s list. One hundred RCTs for member journals and 100 RCTs for affiliated journals with a data-sharing policy, submitted after 1 July 2018.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome for the policies was the existence of a data-sharing policy (explicit data-sharing policy, no data-sharing policy, policy merely referring to ICMJE recommendations) as reported on the journal website, especially in the instructions for authors. For RCTs, our primary outcome was the intention to share individual participant data set out in the data-sharing statement.ResultsEight (out of 14; 57%) member journals had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (three were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, one was less demanding and four were compliant), five (35%) additional journals stated that they followed the ICMJE requirements, and one (8%) had no policy online. In RCTs published in these journals, there were data-sharing statements in 98 out of 100, with expressed intention to share individual patient data reaching 77 out of 100 (77%; 95% CI 67% to 85%). One hundred and forty-five (out of 489) ICMJE-affiliated journals (30%; 26% to 34%) had an explicit data-sharing policy on their website (11 were more stringent than the ICMJE requirements, 85 were less demanding and 49 were compliant) and 276 (56%; 52% to 61%) merely referred to the ICMJE requirements. In RCTs published in affiliated journals with an explicit data-sharing policy, data-sharing statements were rare (25%), and expressed intentions to share data were found in 22% (15% to 32%).ConclusionThe implementation of ICMJE data-sharing requirements in online journal policies was suboptimal for ICMJE-member journals and poor for ICMJE-affiliated journals. The implementation of the policy was good in member journals and of concern for affiliated journals. We suggest the conduct of continuous audits of medical journal data-sharing policies in the future.RegistrationThe protocol was registered before the start of the research on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n6whd/).

DHA supplementation in infants born preterm and the effect on attention at 18 months’ corrected age: follow-up of a subset of the N3RO randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erandi Hewawasam ◽  
Carmel T. Collins ◽  
Beverly S. Muhlhausler ◽  
Lisa N. Yelland ◽  
Lisa G. Smithers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Peak Period ◽  
Soya Oil ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Brain

Abstract Infants born preterm miss out on the peak period of in utero DHA accretion to the brain during the last trimester of pregnancy which is hypothesised to contribute to the increased prevalence of neurodevelopmental deficits in this population. This study aimed to determine whether DHA supplementation in infants born preterm improves attention at 18 months’ corrected age. This is a follow-up of a subset of infants who participated in the N3RO randomised controlled trial. Infants were randomised to receive an enteral emulsion of high-dose DHA (60 mg/kg per d) or no DHA (soya oil – control) from within the first days of birth until 36 weeks’ post-menstrual age. The assessment of attention involved three tasks requiring the child to maintain attention on toy/s in either the presence or absence of competition or a distractor. The primary outcome was the child’s latency of distractibility when attention was focused on a toy. The primary outcome was available for seventy-three of the 120 infants that were eligible to participate. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in the latency of distractibility (adjusted mean difference: 0·08 s, 95 % CI –0·81, 0·97; P = 0·86). Enteral DHA supplementation did not result in improved attention in infants born preterm at 18 months’ corrected age.

scholarly journals Accuracy and consequences of usingtrial-of-antibioticsfor TB diagnosis (ACT-TB study): protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e033999
Author(s):  
Titus Henry Divala ◽  
Katherine L Fielding ◽  
Derek J Sloan ◽  
Neil French ◽  
Marriott Nliwasa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
London School ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionOver 40% of global tuberculosis case notifications are diagnosed clinically without mycobacteriological confirmation. Standard diagnostic algorithms include ‘trial-of-antibiotics’—empirical antibiotic treatment given to mycobacteriology-negative individuals to treat infectious causes of symptoms other than tuberculosis, as a ‘rule-out’ diagnostic test for tuberculosis. Potentially 26.5 million such antibiotic courses/year are prescribed globally for the 5.3 million/year mycobacteriology-negative patients, making trial-of-antibiotics the most common tuberculosis diagnostic, and a global-scale risk for antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our systematic review found no randomised controlled trial (RCT) to support use of trial-of-antibiotic. The RCT aims to determine the diagnostic and clinical value and AMR consequences of trial-of-antibiotics.Methods and analysisA three-arm, open-label, RCT randomising (1:1:1) Malawian adults (≥18 years) seeking primary care for cough into: (a) azithromycin 500 mg one time per day for 3 days or (b) amoxicillin 1 g three times per day for 5 days or (c) standard-of-care (no immediate antibiotic). We will perform mycobacteriology tests (microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF (Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampicin) andMycobacterium tuberculosisculture) at baseline. We will use audiocomputer-assisted self-interview to assess clinical improvement at day 8. First primary outcome will be proportion of patients reporting day 8 improvement out of those with negative mycobacteriology (specificity). Second primary outcome will be day 29 incidence of a composite endpoint of either death or hospitalisation or missed tuberculosis diagnosis. To determine AMR impact we compare proportion of resistant nasopharyngealStreptococcus pneumoniaeisolates on day 29. 400 mycobacteriology-negative participants/arm will be required to detect a ≥10% absolute difference in diagnostic specificity with 80% power. We will estimate measures of effect by comparing outcomes in antibiotic arms (combined and individually) to standard-of-care.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by Malawi College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) Research Ethics Committee and Regional Committee for Health and Research Ethics – Norway, and Malawi Pharmacy, Medicines and Poisons Board. We will present abstracts at relevant conferences, and prepare a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberThe clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT03545373

scholarly journals Triggers of defensive medical behaviours: a cross-sectional study among physicians in the Netherlands

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e025108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Renkema ◽  
Kees Ahaus ◽  
Manda Broekhuis ◽  
Maria Tims
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Avoidance Behaviour ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Self Blame ◽  
Prescribe Medicine ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Defensive Behaviours

ObjectivesThis study investigated whether the attitudes of physicians towards justified and unjustified litigation, and their perception of patient pressure in demanding care, influence their use of defensive medical behaviours.DesignCross-sectional survey using exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine litigation attitude and perceived patient pressure factors. Regression analyses were used to regress these factors on to the ordering of extra tests or procedures (defensive assurance behaviour) or the avoidance of high-risk patients or procedures (defensive avoidance behaviour).SettingData were collected from eight Dutch hospitals.ParticipantsRespondents were 160 physicians and 54 residents (response rate 25%) of the hospital departments of (1) anaesthesiology, (2) colon, stomach and liver diseases, (3) gynaecology, (4) internal medicine, (5) neurology and (6) surgery.Primary outcome measuresRespondents’ application of defensive assurance and avoidance behaviours.Results‘Disapproval of justified litigation’ and ‘Concerns about unjustified litigation’ were positively related to both assurance (β=0.21, p<0.01, and β=0.28, p<0.001, respectively) and avoidance (β=0.16, p<0.05, and β=0.18, p<0.05, respectively) behaviours. ‘Self-blame for justified litigation’ was not significantly related to both defensive behaviours. Perceived patient pressures to refer (β=0.18, p<0.05) and to prescribe medicine (β=0.23, p<0.01) had direct positive relationships with assurance behaviour, whereas perceived patient pressure to prescribe medicine was also positively related to avoidance behaviour (β=0.14, p<0.05). No difference was found between physicians and residents in their defensive medical behaviour.ConclusionsPhysicians adopted more defensive medical behaviours if they had stronger thoughts and emotions towards (un)justified litigation. Further, physicians should be aware that perceived patient pressure for care can lead to them adopting defensive behaviours that negatively affects the quality and safety of patient care.

scholarly journals Impact of Pharmaceutical Industry Versus University Sponsorship on Survey Response: A Randomized Trial among Canadian Hepatitis C Care Providers

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P Myers ◽  
Abdel Aziz M Shaheen ◽  
Samuel S Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
To Receive

BACKGROUND: Surveys originating from universities appear to have higher response rates than those from commercial sources. In light of the growing scrutiny placed on physician-industry relations, the present study aimed to determine the impact of the pharmaceutical industry versus university sponsorship on response to a postal survey completed by Canadian hepatitis C virus (HCV) care providers.PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present controlled trial, 229 physicians and nurses involved in HCV treatment were randomly assigned to receive a survey with sponsorship from a pharmaceutical company or university. The primary outcome was the proportion of completed surveys returned. The secondary outcomes included the response rate after the first mailing and the number of days taken to respond.RESULTS: One hundred fifteen participants were randomly assigned to receive the pharmaceutical industry survey and 114 were assigned to receive the university survey. The final response rate was 72.9% (167 of 229), which did not differ between the industry and university groups (RR=0.91; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07). Nurses (OR=2.20; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.48) and participants from an academic centre (OR=3.14; 95% CI 1.64 to 6.00) were more likely to respond. The response rate after the first mailing (RR=0.85; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07) and the median number of days taken to respond (21 days in both groups; P=0.20) did not differ between the industry and university groups.CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship does not appear to negatively impact response rates to a postal survey completed by Canadian HCV care providers.

scholarly journals Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e025273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J Godolphin ◽  
Philip M Bath ◽  
Alan A Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Additional Data ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Unit Of Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Contacting Authors

ObjectiveSystematic reviews often rely on the acquisition of unpublished analyses or data. We carried out a nested randomised trial comparing two different approaches for contacting authors to request additional data for a systematic review.ParticipantsParticipants were authors of published reports of prevention or treatment trials in stroke in which there was central adjudication of events. A primary and secondary research active author were selected as contacts for each trial.InterventionsAuthors were randomised to be sent either a short email with a protocol of the systematic review attached (‘Short’) or a longer email that contained detailed information and without the protocol attached (‘Long’). A maximum of two emails were sent to each author to obtain a response. The unit of analysis was trial, accounting for clustering by author.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was whether a response was received from authors. Secondary outcomes included time to response, number of reminders needed before a response was received and whether authors agreed to collaborate.Results88 trials with 76 primary authors were identified in the systematic review, and of these, 36 authors were randomised to Short (trials=45) and 40 to Long (trials=43). Responses were received for 69 trials. There was no evidence of a difference in response rate between trial arms (Short vs Long, OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.33). There was no evidence of a difference in time to response between trial arms (Short vs Long, HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.51). In total, 27% of authors responded within a day and 22% of authors never responded.ConclusionsThere was no evidence to suggest that email format had an impact on the number of responses received when acquiring data for a systematic review involving stroke trials or the time taken to receive these responses.

scholarly journals Socio-economic differences in takeaway food consumption among adults

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyoko Miura ◽  
Katrina Giskes ◽  
Gavin Turrell
Keyword(s):  
Food Consumption ◽  
Household Income ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Income Group ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Vegetable Juice ◽  
Binomial Regression ◽  
Prevalence Ratios ◽  
Overweight Or Obesity

AbstractObjectiveTo examine socio-economic differences in the frequency and types of takeaway foods consumed.DesignA cross-sectional postal survey.SettingParticipants were asked about their usual consumption of overall takeaway food (<4 times/month or ≥4 times/month) and of twenty-two specific takeaway food items (<1 time/month or ≥1 time/month); these latter foods were grouped into ‘healthy’ and ‘less healthy’ choices. Socio-economic position was measured on the basis of educational level and equivalised household income, and differences in takeaway food consumption were assessed by calculating prevalence ratios using log binomial regression.SubjectsAdults aged 25–64 years from Brisbane, Australia, were randomly selected from the electoral roll (n903; 63·7 % response rate).ResultsCompared with their more educated counterparts, the least educated were more regular consumers of overall takeaway food and fruit or vegetable juice and less regular consumers of sushi. For the ‘less healthy’ items, the least educated more regularly consumed potato chips, savoury pies, fried chicken and non-diet soft drinks; however, the least educated were less likely to consume curry. Household income was not associated with overall takeaway consumption. The lowest-income group was a more regular consumer of fruit or vegetable juice compared with the highest-income group. Among the ‘less healthy’ items, the lowest-income group was a more regular consumer of fried fish, ice cream and milk shakes, whereas curry was consumed less regularly.ConclusionsThe frequency and types of takeaway foods consumed by socio-economically disadvantaged groups may contribute to inequalities in overweight or obesity and to chronic disease.

scholarly journals Virtual obstetrics and gynecology fellowship interviews during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a survey study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Peyser ◽  
Moti Gulersen ◽  
Michael Nimaroff ◽  
Christine Mullin ◽  
Randi H. Goldman
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Obstetrics And Gynecology ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Interview Process ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Attending Physicians

Abstract Background Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, all Obstetrics and Gynecology fellowship interviews were held virtually for the 2020 fellowship match cycle. The aim of this study was to describe our initial experience with virtual Obstetrics and Gynecology fellowship interviews and evaluate its effectiveness in assessing candidates. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey study that included all interviewing attending physicians and fellows from five Obstetrics and Gynecology subspecialties at a single academic institution following the 2020–2021 fellowship interview season. The survey consisted of 19 questions aimed to evaluate each subspecialty’s virtual interview process, including its feasibility and performance in evaluating applicants. The primary outcome was the subjective utility of virtual interviews. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of responses from fellows and attending physicians. Results Thirty-six attendings and fellows completed the survey (36/53, 68% response rate). Interviewers felt applicants were able to convey themselves adequately during the virtual interview (92%) and the majority (70%) agreed that virtual interviews should be offered in future years. Attending physicians were more likely than fellows to state that the virtual interview process adequately assessed the candidates (Likert Scale Mean: 4.4 vs. 3.8, respectively, p = 0.02). Respondents highlighted decreased cost, time saved, and increased flexibility as benefits to the virtual interview process. Conclusion The use of virtual interviews provides a favorable method for conducting fellowship interviews and should be considered for use in future application cycles. Most respondents were satisfied with the virtual interview process and found they were an effective tool for evaluating applicants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document