MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167946628 · doi:10.2196/30265

Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

2021· article· en· W3167946628 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cassandra A. Hathaway, Melody Chavez, Mika Kadono, Dana Ketcher, Dana E. Rollison, Erin M. Siegel, Anita R. Peoples, Cornelia M. Ulrich, Frank J. Penedo, Shelley S. Tworoger, Brian D. Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMoffitt Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicinePandemicIncentiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicineDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surveys play a vital role in cancer research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of electronic surveys is crucial to improve understanding of the patient experience. However, response rates to electronic surveys are often lower compared with those of paper surveys. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the best approach to improve response rates for an electronic survey administered to patients at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We contacted 2750 patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center in the prior 5 years via email to complete a survey regarding their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients randomly assigned to a series of variations of prenotifications (ie, postcard, letter) or incentives (ie, small gift, modest gift card). In total, eight combinations were evaluated. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the level of patient understanding and burden with the survey, and quantitative analysis was used to evaluate the response rates between conditions. RESULTS: A total of 262 (9.5%) patients completed the survey and 9 participated in a qualitative interview. Interviews revealed minimal barriers in understanding or burden, which resulted in minor survey design changes. Compared to sending an email only, sending a postcard or letter prior to the email improved response rates from 3.7% to 9.8%. Similarly, inclusion of an incentive significantly increased the response rate from 5.4% to 16.7%, especially among racial (3.0% to 12.2%) and ethnic (6.4% to 21.0%) minorities, as well as among patients with low socioeconomic status (3.1% to 14.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to promote effective response rates include prenotification postcards or letters as well as monetary incentives. This work can inform future survey development to increase response rates for electronic surveys, particularly among hard-to-reach populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.269
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207