MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200806713 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052843

Effect of prenotification on the response rate of a postal survey of emergency physicians: a randomised, controlled, assessor-blind trial

2021· article· en· W3200806713 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael Hickey, Lauralyn McIntyre, Monica Taljaard, Kasim E. Abdulaziz, Krishan Yadav, Carly Hickey, Jeffrey J. Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsQueensway-Carleton HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.550
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207