Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Halpern, S. D
Right arrow Articles by Asch, D. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Halpern, S. D
Right arrow Articles by Asch, D. A
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:637-638
© International Epidemiological Association 2003

Commentary: Improving response rates to mailed surveys: what do we learn from randomized controlled trials?

Scott D Halpern1,2,3 and David A Asch1,2,4,5,6

1 Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics,
2 Center for Bioethics,
3 Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics,
4 Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and
5 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
6 Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Correspondence: David A Asch, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, 3641 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. E-mail: asch@wharton.upenn.edu

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Surveying physicians via mailed questionnaires often provides valuable information about physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours. Unfortunately, low response rates may introduce bias in that information on those who complete the questionnaire differs from those who do not, in ways related to the outcomes being evaluated.1–3

There is no necessary relation between low response rates and bias.1,2 A 10% response rate in a survey of 100 000 physicians would introduce no bias if the 10 000 responders were similar to the underlying target population in the behaviours or beliefs being evaluated. By contrast, a 90% response rate in this survey might . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NEJMHome page
S. D. Halpern, W. Borden, R. Kamp, K. E. Hunt, R. C. Wallach, L. K. Barger, N. Ayas, C. A. Czeisler, and the Harvard Work Hours, Health, and Safety Group
Post-Call Accidents
N. Engl. J. Med., April 7, 2005; 352(14): 1491 - 1492.
[Full Text] [PDF]