MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2424841980

Response rates for mailout survey-driven studies in patients waiting for thyroid surgery.

2011· article· en· W2424841980 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Eskander, Jeremy L. Freeman, Lorne Rotstein, Kevin Higgins, Danny Enepekides, Ralph Gilbert, Dale Brown, Patrick Gullane, Jonathan C. Irish, Anna M. Sawka, David P. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyIntrusivenessHospital Anxiety and Depression ScalePopulationClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Scale (ratio)Family medicineGeneral surgeryPhysical therapyPsychiatryPsychologyEnvironmental healthSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the surgical literature, mailout survey studies are becoming more prevalent. The objective of this article is to summarize response rates in patients waiting for thyroid surgery and to document the methodology of mailout survey questionnaires. METHODS: The results reported here are from a study assessing clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with high levels of anxiety while patients are waiting for thyroid surgery. The surveys used in this study include a sociodemographic patient opinion questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale (IIRS), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). A modified Dillman tailored design approach was used. Assessment of nonresponders was performed. RESULTS: The methods used yielded a response rate of 54% with this patient population. Some differences were noted among responders and nonresponders. CONCLUSION: This response rate is comparable to but in the lower spectrum of that stated in the oncology literature likely owing to the increase in the length of the survey, number of sensitive questions, limitations in the number of mailouts, and limited familiarity with the surgeon requesting participation in research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.201
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.201
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.628
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207