Survey participation among general practitioners: comparison between teaching physicians and a random sample

Objective Health scientists strive for a smooth recruitment of physicians for research projects like surveys. Teaching physicians are an easy to approach population that is already affiliated with a university by teaching students in their practice. How do response rates compare between a convenient online survey among teaching physicians and an elaborate postal survey in a random sample of unknown physicians? Data from the TMI-GP study on the use of memory tests in general practice were used. Results Physicians in the random sample responded to the postal survey more often than teaching physicians to the online survey (59.5% vs. 18.9%; odds ratio 7.06; 95% confidence interval 4.81–10.37; p < 0.001). Although it is unclear whether the sample, the survey mode (online vs. postal) or both account for this effect, it is noteworthy that even in such a convenience sample of known/committed physicians, an adequate response rate could not be reached without a tailored and elaborated survey technique. Responders in the two samples were comparable regarding a content-related item (use of memory tests; Χ2 (df = 1) = 3.07; p = 0.080).

Pediatric Resident Education in Pediatric Cardiology – A Needs Assessment

Background: Although congenital heart disease is the most common human birth defect, the scope and breadth of pediatric cardiology is far more diverse. Additionally, there continues to be rapid advancements in the field with educators becoming increasingly sub-specialized. As such, determining the topics general pediatric residents are taught must be selected based on numerous factors including resident career goals, core topics for board exams, and educator preferences. This study aimed to determine if the educational needs of general pediatric residents are met while on a pediatric cardiology rotation. Methods: All PL-2 and PL-3 residents in the Children’s National Hospital pediatrics residency program who had completed a required cardiology rotation as well as all pediatric cardiology fellows and pediatric cardiology attendings were asked to complete a survey. Participation in the study was voluntary. Respondents were asked to answer questions related to the perceived effectiveness and applicability of the currently administered cardiology curriculum, specifically inquiring about methods of teaching, the level taught, and the utility of topics selected. Results: Twenty-four (31%) of the 77 eligible residents completed the survey. Fourteen (82%) of the eligible attendings and nine (75%) of the cardiology fellows completed the survey. Seventeen unique topics in pediatric cardiology were ranked. The highest rated topics based on both perceived needs and wants included congenital heart disease, murmurs, cardiac physiology, ECG interpretation, and syncope/dizziness. Participants reported the highest satisfaction for whiteboard and bedside teaching. Conclusions: Overall, general pediatrics residents were satisfied with the current educational design of the inpatient cardiology rotation. These data provide a framework, both in teaching modalities and core concepts, for continued development and reassessment of inpatient pediatric cardiology rotations to optimally prepare pediatric residents with a strong foundation in pediatric cardiology.

Maximizing participation from online survey panel members

Low survey participation from online panel members is a key challenge for market and social researchers. We identify 10 key drivers of panel members’ online survey participation from a qualitative study and then determine empirically using a stated choice experiment the relative importance of each of those drivers at aggregate and segment levels. We contribute to knowledge on survey participation by (a) eliciting key drivers of survey participation by online panel members, (b) determining the relative importance of each driver, and (c) accounting for heterogeneity across panel members in the importance assigned to drivers. Findings offer immediate practical guidance to market and social researchers on how to increase participation in surveys using online panels.

Public perception of NHS general practice during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic in England

Background: In March 2020, the delivery of NHS general practice consultations was rapidly modified to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Remote triage and consultations became the default, with adapted models for face-to-face contact if clinically required. This study aimed to gain insight into public perception of these adaptations. Methods: Two online surveys were developed, and conducted in August and September 2020. Survey A, open to adults (>18 years) receiving the link to it, considered respondents’ perspectives on healthcare contacts since March 2020, and their understanding of the adapted delivery. Survey B, open to survey A respondents only, then considered how healthcare communication had been received and individual preferences for this. Survey participation was voluntary. Results: The perceptions of 150 members of the public were obtained. 105 had considered contacting general practice, although half avoided this or delayed doing so for longer than usual. While some patients did so ‘to help the NHS’, others experienced reduced access for reasons including concerns about telephone consultations and about COVID-19 safety. Some however reported benefitting from remote consultation availability and regular texts/emails from their practice. 68% (102/150) of respondents were unaware that patients with COVID-19 were seen separately from other patients during general practice appointments. 27% in survey B who had avoided or delayed contact said they would have felt more comfortable contacting general practice had they known this. Conclusions: Experience and use of the adapted general practice models varied. Some patients felt their access to healthcare was reduced, often due to technological requirements. For some who found attending face-to-face appointments difficult however, remote contact was advantageous. Most of those surveyed were unaware of the COVID-19 control measures in place during face-to-face general practice consultations. Assessment of adapted delivery model accessibility and clearer public messaging about the changes may help reduce inequalities.

Suspicious and fraudulent online survey participation: Introducing the REAL framework

Online survey research has significantly increased in popularity in recent years. With its use, researchers have a new set of concerns about data collection and analysis to consider, including the possibility of fraudulent survey submissions. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate to survey researchers an innovative and systematized process for addressing online survey fraud over the course of collecting survey data, especially when respondents collect incentives for participation. We provide the Reflect, Expect, Analyze, Label Framework, which includes four sets of guiding questions for use by online survey researchers to plan for addressing survey fraud and making determinations about the inclusion or exclusion of participant submissions from the dataset based on level of suspicion. We also provide a full case example utilizing the Reflect, Expect, Analyze, Label Framework as an appendix. Those wanting to apply the Reflect, Expect, Analyze, Label Framework should keep in mind several considerations as they apply it, including determining logistical needs ahead of survey implementation, considering the ethical issues related to including or excluding data in a study, and considering the issues related to providing incentives for participating in research. Future research should assess the frequency of survey fraud, investigate the reasons for its occurrence and explore the role social networks may play in fraudulent participants sharing information. We suggest that researchers consider online survey fraud as an issue over the lifespan of their survey and apply the guiding questions we present to address the issue throughout.

An Examination of Resident Perspectives on Survey Participation and Methodology: Implications for Educational Practice and Research

ABSTRACT Background In medical education, self-administered questionnaires are used to gather information for needs assessments, innovation projects, program evaluations, and research studies. Despite the importance of survey methodology, response rates have declined for years, especially for physicians. Objective This study explored residents' experiences with survey participation and perceptions of survey design and implementation. Methods In 2019, residents at a large Midwestern academic medical center were recruited via email to participate in mixed specialty focus groups (FGs). Narrative comments were recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed via conventional content analysis, utilizing cognitive sociology as a conceptual framework. Themes and subthemes were generated iteratively. Results Postgraduate year 1–4 residents (n = 33) from internal medicine, surgery, and neurology participated in 7 FGs (3–7 participants/group) from April–May 2019. Eight themes were generated during content analysis: Negative emotions, professionalism, accuracy, impact, survey design/implementation, biases, survey fatigue, and anonymity. Residents questioned the accuracy of survey data, given the tendency for self-selection to drive survey participation. Residents wanted survey participation to be meaningful and reported non-participation for a variety of reasons, including doubts over impact. Satisficing and breakoffs were commonly reported. Conclusions Though residency program cultures differ across institutions, the findings from this study, including potential barriers to survey participation, should be relevant to anyone in graduate medical education using survey methodology for programmatic data collection, accreditation, and research purposes.

COVID-19 Survey Participation and Wellbeing: A Survey Experiment

Individuals throughout the world are being recruited into studies to examine the social impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While previous literature has illustrated how research participation can impact distress and wellbeing, to the authors’ best knowledge no study has examined this in the COVID-19 context. Using an innovative approach, this study analyses the impacts of participation in a COVID-19 survey in Australia on subjective wellbeing through a survey experiment. At a population level, we find no evidence that participation impacts subjective wellbeing. However, this may not hold for those with mental health concerns and those living in financial insecurity. These findings provide the research community with a deeper understanding of the potential wellbeing impacts from COVID-19-related research participation.

An Experimental Study on the Impact of Contact Design on Web Survey Participation

In higher education institutions, web surveys are frequently used for educational, research, and administrative purposes. One of the consequences of this is increasing oversurveying of higher education students, leading to low response rates. This naturally has important implications for the validity of web survey results. Consequently, we set up a methodological experiment at Tilburg University, the Netherlands, whereby the total student population was invited to participate in a web survey in order to investigate which features of contact design can positively influence web survey participation. We particularly focus on subject line content, the communication of deadlines and their timing, as well as the delays between contact moments. The results reveal that students were more likely to respond to a web survey invitation when the subject line is written in the national language in multilingual contexts. Furthermore, although the findings did not indicate an advantage of using a deadline, they also suggested that if a deadline is to be used, a longer deadline might be more beneficial.

Public perception of NHS general practice during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic in England

Background: In March 2020, the delivery of NHS general practice consultations was rapidly modified to mitigate against the spread of COVID-19. Remote triage and consultations became the default, with adapted models for face-to-face contact if clinically required. This study aimed to gain insight into public perception of these adaptations. Methods: Two online surveys were developed, then conducted between August and September 2020. Survey A, open to anyone receiving details of it, considered respondents’ experiences of healthcare contacts since March 2020, and their understanding of the adapted delivery. Survey B, open to survey A respondents only, then considered how healthcare communication had been received and individual preferences for this. Survey participation was voluntary. Results: The views and experiences of 150 members of the public were obtained. 105 had considered contacting general practice, although half avoided this or delayed doing so for longer than usual. While some patients did so ‘to help the NHS’, others experienced reduced access for a variety of reasons including COVID-19 safety concerns. Some however reported benefitting from remote consultation availability and regular texts/emails from their practice. 68% (102/150) of respondents were unaware that patients with COVID-19 were seen separately from other patients during general practice appointments. 27% of those in survey B who had avoided or delayed contact said they would have felt more comfortable contacting general practice had they known about this. Conclusions: Experience and use of the adapted general practice models varied. Some patients felt their access to healthcare was reduced, often due to technological requirements. For some who found attending face-to-face appointments difficult logistically however, remote contact was advantageous. Most patients surveyed were unaware of the COVID-19 control measures in place during face-to-face general practice consultations. Assessment of adapted delivery model accessibility and clearer public messaging about the changes may help reduce inequalities.

Survey participation effects in conflict research

Do survey participants in conflict zones respond differently if they have been interviewed before? Academic and policy interest in postwar political opinion has increased tremendously. One unexpected consequence of this surge of survey research is a growing probability that individuals will be interviewed multiple times. However, if participating in one survey causes respondents to change their attitudes or behavior, their subsequent survey responses may be biased in comparison to the rest of the sample population. Our article aims to investigate such ‘survey participation effects’ in conflict contexts. We draw on original survey data collected in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In our representative sample, 18% of respondents report that they have been interviewed before. Multivariate analyses demonstrate that their stated attitudes on social relations, political institutions, gender norms, and wartime victimization differ substantively from the responses of first-time interviewees. Moreover, our analyses indicate that experienced respondents have specific response styles – in particular, a tendency to support extreme response options. While substantive bias in multivariate analyses seems to be rather rare, our findings indicate that researchers should be aware of the footprints of data collection efforts in areas frequently targeted by household and opinion surveys.