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

Abstract

BackgroundLow 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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%).ConclusionsNeither 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 RegistrationUniversity 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)

Posttraumatic stress disorder and posttraumatic growth in a national sample of pediatric oncology professionals

“…Established measures of reactions to trauma were administered to a large national sample. The response rate of 12.4% was similar to those obtained from other online surveys of physicians but raises concerns about potential response bias . PTSD rates may be overestimated if the respondents participated in the survey as a “cry for help” to bring attention to their PTSD symptoms.…”

“…from other online surveys of physicians but raises concerns about potential response bias. 15 PTSD rates may be overestimated if the respondents participated in the survey as a "cry for help" to bring attention to their PTSD symptoms. Alternatively, PTSD rates could be underestimated if professionals with PTSD lacked the time and resources to respond.…”

Prevalence of sleep deprivation and its effect on the performance of family medicine residents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

“…[ 17 18 19 ] We tried to avoid a low response to prevent the introduction of bias into the survey results. [ 20 ] We did not investigate the reasons for nonresponders and the lack of participation as it was beyond the scope of this study and could have breached confidentiality.…”

Perspectives of online surveys in dermatology

“…Ebert and colleagues sent 7200 invitations (3600 digital and 3600 paper) to Danish citizens to take part in a survey about help‐seeking behaviour in some diseases, and the response rates were 36.3% and 46% for the digital and paper arms, respectively . So et al . conducted a web‐based trial on physicians from the Japan Primary Care Association and the response rate hit a low of 6.3%.…”