E-survey with researchers, members of ethics committees and sponsors of clinical research in Brazil: an emerging methodology for scientific research

Abstract

Despite the potential limitations of a survey done through the Internet, this study led to a response rate similar to what has been observed with other models, efficiency in obtaining responses (speed and quality), convenience for respondents and low cost.

The use of social networks in scientific research with questionnaires

“…The literature demonstrates that most of the questionnaires sent by mail are returned within the first two weeks of research 2,3,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25] , which is corroborated by the current study. Moreover, a higher prevalence of return was observed through the social network in the first 30 days; after 150 days, however, the mailed questionnaires had a higher return rate, resulting in an overall higher rate (18 -60.0%).…”

“…Moreover, a higher prevalence of return was observed through the social network in the first 30 days; after 150 days, however, the mailed questionnaires had a higher return rate, resulting in an overall higher rate (18 -60.0%). This finding suggests that social networks are important tools for questionnaire-based research when data can be collected within a short timeframe [23][24][25] ; for research in general, the most efficient way to send questionnaire and receive responses is by mail.…”

“…Research using questionnaires is necessary and practiced widely [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][23][24][25] . It is worth emphasizing that the internet, in addition to its technological benefits, has been asserted as a powerful research mechanism 2,22 .…”

Cancer-related fatigue: a survey of health practitioner knowledge and practice

“…community rehabilitation centres, gym programs such as community health or rehabilitation practitioners may not have considered that they met the survey inclusion criteria. While invitation through professional organisations of intended participants may have reduced selection bias, the unknown response rate limits generalisability of survey results [30]. The survey was distributed via email invitation and it is not known how many of the emails or attachments were opened or read by health professionals meeting the selection criteria [30].…”

“…While invitation through professional organisations of intended participants may have reduced selection bias, the unknown response rate limits generalisability of survey results [30]. The survey was distributed via email invitation and it is not known how many of the emails or attachments were opened or read by health professionals meeting the selection criteria [30]. It is also common for people overwhelmed by email volume to adopt a practice of deletion if they are not interested in the topic [31].…”