Do GPs respond to postal questionnaire surveys? A comprehensive review of primary care literature

63Citations
Citations of this article
36Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: There is a general consensus that postal surveys of physicians have low response rates. Recent systematic reviews have provided an improved evidence base to help researchers maximize response rates to self-completion questionnaires but to date, there is no comprehensive analysis of whether response rates have improved. Objective: To determine a contemporary estimate for the mean response rate to surveys of GPs published in primary care journals over the past decade. Method: Twenty-four primary care journals from January 2000 to summer 2009 were searched for postal surveys of GPs. A total of 2838 abstracts were screened, with 683 full-text articles being examined for eligibility and 355 citations included. Results: Three hundred and sixty-one surveys of GPs were identified. A total of 338 598 questionnaires were distributed during the study period, with 182 256 returned response rate 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] 59-63%). There was some evidence of an association between response rate and journal impact factor, with a statistically significant higher mean response rate for journals in the highest (mean 67%; 95% CI 64-70%) compared to journals in the lowest quartile of impact factor (mean 55%; 95% CI 51-59%). There was no evidence that mean response rate had increased in the period from 2000 to 2009. Conclusions: Postal questionnaires of GPs do not necessarily result in a low response rate. Response rates over the past decade appear relatively unchanged despite the greater evidence base for improving response and further work should explore reasons for this. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Creavin, S. T., Creavin, A. L., & Mallen, C. D. (2011). Do GPs respond to postal questionnaire surveys? A comprehensive review of primary care literature. Family Practice, 28(4), 461–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmr001

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free