Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Puleo, E.
Right arrow Articles by Taplin, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Puleo, E.
Right arrow Articles by Taplin, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 25, No. 2, 169-184 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/016327870202500203

Caffeine, Cajoling, and Other Strategies to Maximize Clinician Survey Response Rates

Elaine Puleo

Jane Zapka

Mary Jo White

University of Massachusetts

Judy Mouchawar

Carol Somkin

Kaiser Permanente

Stephen Taplin

Group Health Cooperative

An ongoing objective in health services research is to increase response rates to clinician surveys to ensure generalizability of findings. Three HMOs in the Cancer Research Network participated in a primary care clinician survey to better understand organizational characteristics affecting adoption and implementation of breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. A four-stage data collection strategy was implemented to maximize response. This included careful attention to survey design and layout, extensive piloting, choice of token incentive, use of "local champions," and denominator management. An overall response rate of 91% was attained, ranging from83 to 100% among the plans(N = 621). Although the response rate after the second stage of data collection met commonly used standards, the authors argue for the four-stage method due to the possibility of differences when comparing early and late responders. This is important when multiple plans with differing structure and internal characteristics are surveyed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
E. H. Wagner, S. M. Greene, G. Hart, T. S. Field, S. Fletcher, A. M. Geiger, L. J. Herrinton, M. C. Hornbrook, C. C. Johnson, J. Mouchawar, et al.
Building a Research Consortium of Large Health Systems: The Cancer Research Network
J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, November 1, 2005; 2005(35): 3 - 11.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
M. C. Hornbrook, G. Hart, J. L. Ellis, D. J. Bachman, G. Ansell, S. M. Greene, E. H. Wagner, R. Pardee, M. M. Schmidt, A. Geiger, et al.
Building a Virtual Cancer Research Organization
J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, November 1, 2005; 2005(35): 12 - 25.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
J. G. Zapka, E. Puleo, S. Taplin, L. I. Solberg, J. Mouchawar, C. Somkin, A. M. Geiger, and M. U. Yood
Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: Clinicians' Views on Health Plan Guidelines and Implementation Efforts
J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, November 1, 2005; 2005(35): 46 - 54.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
P. M Boynton
Administering, analysing, and reporting your questionnaire
BMJ, June 5, 2004; 328(7452): 1372 - 1375.
[Full Text] [PDF]