4.2 Article

Do Physicians Prefer to Complete Online or Mail Surveys? Findings From a National Longitudinal Survey

Journal

EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 41-70

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0163278718807744

Keywords

response mode; mail surveys; online surveys; mixed mode; longitudinal survey; mode preference; physician survey; response rates; hard copy; Australia

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council Health Services Research Grant [454799]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Medical Workforce Dynamics [1019605]
  3. Health Workforce Australia
  4. Department of Health and Ageing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Survey response rates for physicians are falling generally, and surveys of physicians tend to have lower response rates than those of the general population. To maximize response, respondents are often given a choice of modes in which to respond. The aim of this article is to describe mode response patterns and identify factors related to physicians' decisions to complete surveys online rather than by mail. The data are from the fifth annual wave of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life longitudinal survey of physicians, in which there was a 43.5% response rate (10,746/24,711) and 33.7% of respondents completed the survey online. Online completion was more likely when the physician had completed the survey online in the previous wave, was a general practitioner rather than other medical specialist or doctor-in-training, worked in a remote location, and was young and male. Free-text spontaneous comments from respondents indicated that mode choice was based on a combination of preference, previous experience, and feasibility. These results provide support for the use of mixed mode survey designs, which can accommodate doctors with different mode preferences and cast doubt over the possibility of tailoring mode based on respondent characteristics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available