↓ Skip to main content

Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
736 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
431 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0016-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ceara Tess Cunningham, Hude Quan, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Tom Noseworthy, Cynthia A Beck, Elijah Dixon, Susan Samuel, William A Ghali, Lindsay L Sykes, Nathalie Jetté

Abstract

Survey research in healthcare is an important tool to collect information about healthcare delivery, service use and overall issues relating to quality of care. Unfortunately, physicians are often a group with low survey response rates and little research has looked at response rates among physician specialists. For these reasons, the purpose of this project was to explore survey response rates among physician specialists in a large metropolitan Canadian city. As part of a larger project to look at physician payment plans, an online survey about medical billing practices was distributed to 904 physicians from various medical specialties. The primary method for physicians to complete the survey was via the Internet using a well-known and established survey company ( www.surveymonkey.com ). Multiple methods were used to encourage survey response such as individual personalized email invitations, multiple reminders, and a draw for three gift certificate prizes were used to increase response rate. Descriptive statistics were used to assess response rates and reasons for non-response. Overall survey response rate was 35.0%. Response rates varied by specialty: Neurology/neurosurgery (46.6%); internal medicine (42.9%); general surgery (29.6%); pediatrics (29.2%); and psychiatry (27.1%). Non-respondents listed lack of time/survey burden as the main reason for not responding to our survey. Our survey results provide a look into the challenges of collecting healthcare research where response rates to surveys are often low. The findings presented here should help researchers in planning future survey based studies. Findings from this study and others suggest smaller monetary incentives for each individual may be a more appropriate way to increase response rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 431 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Unknown 427 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 13%
Researcher 48 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 10%
Other 31 7%
Other 99 23%
Unknown 112 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 162 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 6%
Social Sciences 21 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 4%
Psychology 10 2%
Other 59 14%
Unknown 136 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,552,664
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#533
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,381
of 264,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.