Effect of prenotification on the response rate of a postal survey of emergency physicians: a randomised, controlled, assessor-blind trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Response rates to physician surveys are typically low. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a prenotification letter on the response rate of a postal survey of emergency physicians. DESIGN: This was a substudy of a national, cross-sectional postal survey sent to emergency physicians in Canada. We randomised participants to either receive a postal prenotification letter prior to the survey, or to no prenotification letter. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 500 emergency physicians in Canada. Participants were selected from the Canadian Medical Directory, a national medical directory which lists more than 99% of practising physicians in Canada. INTERVENTIONS: Using computer-generated randomisation, physicians were randomised in a concealed fashion to receive a prenotification letter approximately 1 week prior to the survey, or to not receive a prenotification letter. All physicians received an unconditional incentive of a $3 coffee card with the survey instrument. In both groups, non-respondents were sent reminder surveys approximately every 14 days and a special contact using Xpresspost during the final contact attempt. OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the survey response rate. RESULTS: 201 of 447 eligible physicians returned the survey (45.0%). Of 231 eligible physicians contacted in the prenotification group, 80 (34.6%) returned the survey and among 237 eligible physicians contacted in the no-prenotification group, 121 (51.1%) returned the survey (absolute difference in proportions 16.5%, 95% CI 2.5 to 30.5, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of a prenotification letter resulted in a lower response rate in this postal survey of emergency physicians. Given the added costs, time and effort required to send a prenotification letter, this study suggests that it may be more effective to omit the prenotification letter in physician postal surveys.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.312 | 0.347 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads 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".