Effects of various methodologic strategies: survey response rates among Canadian physicians and physicians-in-training.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To increase the overall 2007 response rate of the National Physician Survey (NPS) from the survey's 2004 rate of response with the implementation of various methodologic strategies. DESIGN: Physicians were stratified to receive either a long version (12 pages) or a short version (6 pages) of the survey (38% and 62%, respectively). Mixed modes of contact were used-58% were contacted by e-mail and 42% by regular mail-with multiple modes of contact attempted for nonrespondents. The self-administered, confidential surveys were distributed in either English or French. Medical residents and students received e-mail surveys only and were offered a substantial monetary lottery incentive for completing their surveys. A professional communications firm assisted in marketing the survey and delivered advance notification of its impending distribution. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 62 441 practising physicians, 2627 second-year medical residents, and 9162 medical students in Canada. RESULTS: Of the practising physicians group, 60 811 participants were eligible and 19 239 replied, for an overall 2007 study response rate of 31.64% (compared with 35.85% in 2004). No difference in rate of response was found between the longer and shorter versions of the survey. If contacted by regular mail, the response rate was 34.1%; the e-mail group had a response rate of 29.9%. Medical student and resident response rates were 30.8% and 27.9%, respectively (compared with 31.2% and 35.6% in 2004). CONCLUSION: Despite shortening the questionnaires, contacting more physicians by e-mail, and enhancing marketing and follow-up, the 2007 NPS response rate for practising physicians did not surpass the 2004 NPS response rate. Offering a monetary lottery incentive to medical residents and students was also unsuccessful in increasing their response rates. The role of surveys in gathering information from physicians and physicians-in-training remains problematic. Researchers need to investigate alternative strategies for achieving higher rates of response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.227 | 0.480 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".