Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Feb 8;20(2):e28.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.8561.

Effect of Recruitment Methods on Response Rate in a Web-Based Study for Primary Care Physicians: Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial

Ryuhei So  1   2 , Kiyomi Shinohara  1 , Takuya Aoki  3 , Yasushi Tsujimoto  3 , Aya M Suganuma  1 , Toshi A Furukawa  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of Recruitment Methods on Response Rate in a Web-Based Study for Primary Care Physicians: Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial

Ryuhei So et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Low participation rates are one of the most serious disadvantages of Web-based studies. It is necessary to develop effective strategies to improve participation rates to obtain sufficient data.

Objective: The objective of this trial was to investigate the effect of emphasizing the incentive in the subject line of the invitation email and the day of the week of sending the invitation email on the participation rate in a Web-based trial.

Methods: We conducted a 2×2 factorial design randomized controlled trial. We contacted 2000 primary care physicians from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017 and randomly allocated them to 1 of 4 combinations of 2 subject lines (presence or absence of an emphasis on a lottery for an Amazon gift card worth 3000 yen or approximately US $30) and 2 delivery days (sending the invitation email on Tuesday or Friday). The primary outcome was the response rate defined as the number of participants answering the first page of the questionnaire divided by the number of invitation emails delivered. All outcomes were collected between January 17, 2017, and February 8, 2017.

Results: We analyzed data from 1943 out of 2000 participants after excluding those whose email addresses were invalid. The overall response rate was 6.3% (123/1943). There was no significant difference in the response rates between the 2 groups regarding incentive in the subject line: the risk ratio was 1.12 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.58) and the risk difference was 0.7% (95% CI -1.5% to 2.9%). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the response rates between the 2 groups regarding sending the email on Tuesday or Friday: the risk ratio was 0.98 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.38) and the risk difference was -0.1% (95% CI -2.3% to 2.1%).

Conclusions: Neither emphasizing the incentive in the subject line of the invitation email nor varying the day of the week the invitation email was sent led to a meaningful increase in response rates in a Web-based trial with primary care physicians.

Trial registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000025317; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000029121 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation. org/6wOo1jl9t).

Keywords: Web-based surveys; data collection; electronic mail; general practitioners; incentives; physicians; questionnaire design; survey methods; surveys and questionnaires.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: RS has received personal fees from Kagakuhyoronsha Co, Ltd; Medical Review Co, Ltd; and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, outside the submitted work. KS has received a grant from the JPCA. TAF has received lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Meiji, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, and Pfizer. He has received royalties from Igaku-Shoin and Nihon Bunka Kagaku-sha publishers. He has received research support from Mitsubishi-Tanabe and Mochida. AMS, TA, YT, and MK report no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of participants.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dykema J, Jones NR, Piché T, Stevenson J. Surveying clinicians by web: current issues in design and administration. Eval Health Prof. 2013 Sep;36(3):352–381. doi: 10.1177/0163278713496630. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aitken C, Power R, Dwyer R. A very low response rate in an on-line survey of medical practitioners. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008 Jun;32(3):288–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00232.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pomerleau AC, Nelson LS, Hoppe JA, Salzman M, Weiss PS, Perrone J. The impact of prescription drug monitoring programs and prescribing guidelines on emergency department opioid prescribing: a multi-center survey. Pain Med. 2017 Dec 01;18(5):889–897. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnw032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fascì-Spurio F, Meucci G, Papi C, Saibeni S, IG-IBD (Italian Group for Inflammatory Bowel Disease) The use of oral corticosteroids in inflammatory bowel diseases in Italy: an IG-IBD survey. Dig Liver Dis. 2017 Oct;49(10):1092–1097. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.07.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee E, Smith BD, Merrey JW, Lee AI, Podoltsev NA, Barbarotta L, Litzow MR, Prebet T, Luger SM, Gore S, Streiff MB, Zeidan AM. Patterns of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis during treatment of acute leukemia: results of a North American Web-based survey. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2015 Dec;15(12):766–770. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.637. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26363982 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources