Effects of Incentives and Prenotification on Response Rates and Costs in a National Web Survey of Physicians

Dykema, Jennifer; Stevenson, John; Day, Brendan; Sellers, Sherrill L.; Bonham, Vence L.

doi:10.1177/0163278711406113

Cited by 61 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…20,21 The response rate was lower for specialists than generalists or basic scientists, but not by gender, which may limit bias in our analysis. Compensation information was by self-report only.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health, the funders of this study. None of the funders were involved in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript.Previous presentations: National Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, San Diego CA, April 18, 2014. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript sought to assess longitudinal patterns by gender in compensation, and to understand factors associated with these differences in a longitudinal cohort.Method-A 17-year longitudinal follow-up of the National Faculty Survey was conducted with a random sample of faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools. Participants employed full-time at initial and follow-up time periods completed the survey. Annual pre-tax compensation during academic year 2012-13 was compared by gender. Covariates assessed included race/ethnicity; years since first academic appointment; retention in academic career; academic rank; departmental affiliation; percent effort distribution across clinical, teaching, administrative, and research duties; marital and parental status; and any leave or part-time status in the years between surveys.Results-In unadjusted analyses, women earned a mean of $20,520 less than men (P = .03); women made 90 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This difference was reduced to $16,982 (P = .04) after adjusting for covariates. The mean difference of $15,159 was no longer significant (P = .06) when adjusting covariates and for those who had ever taken a leave or worked part-time.Conclusions-The continued gender gap in compensation cannot be accounted for by metrics used to calculate salary. Institutional actions to address these disparities include both initial appointment and annual salary equity reviews, training of senior faculty and administrators to understand implicit bias, and training of women faculty in negotiating skills.Multiple studies over the past 20 years have demonstrated salary inequities disadvantaging female faculty in academic medical careers compared with their male counterparts. 1-5 These inequities were attributed to factors known to be the major determinants of compensation, including part-time status, specialty choice, and work distribution between administrative, teaching, research, and clinical work. However, studies, including our own, 1,2,5,6 have demonstrated that even controlling for these differences, women continue to be compensated less for the same work compared to men.There are limited data indicating whether awareness of these salary gaps has resulted in changes to compensation processes to reduce and eliminate these inequities. Recent data suggest that for new faculty, even those with similar academic backgrounds and research funding success, gender gaps in compensation early in their careers are already presen...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, although we used both HIV-specific and general primary prevention messaging for recruitment, PCPs who may be aware of or interested in PrEP, or in HIV prevention and treatment more generally, may have been inclined to participate in the study, thereby affecting the representativeness of our sample. Despite these limitations, which are common among provider attitude surveys of this nature, 40,41 this study is a foundational step toward characterizing PrEP adoption and related factors among PCPs, who number about 70,000 in the U.S. 42 Lastly, we obtained a relatively low response rate. However, the rate was similar to that of previously published studies on the topic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cross-Sectional Online Survey of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Adoption Among Primary Care Physicians

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Among health care providers, prescription of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been low. Little is known specifically about primary care physicians (PCPs) with regard to PrEP awareness and adoption (i.e., prescription or referral), and factors associated with adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption, and factors associated with adoption among PCPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey conducted in April and May 2015. RESPONDENTS: Members of a national professional organization for academic primary care physicians (n = 266). MAIN MEASURES: PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption (ever prescribed or referred a patient for PrEP [yes/no]), provider and practice characteristics, and self-rated knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs associated with adoption. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 8.6 % (266/2093). Ninety-three percent of respondents reported prior awareness of PrEP. Of these, 34.9 % reported PrEP adoption. In multivariable analysis of provider and practice characteristics, compared with non-adopters, adopters were more likely to provide care to more than 50 HIV-positive patients (vs. 0, aOR = 6.82, 95 % CI 2.06-22.52). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were also more likely to report excellent, very good, or good selfrated PrEP knowledge (15.1 %, 33.7 %, 30.2 % vs. 2.5 %, 18.1 %, 23.8 %, respectively; p < 0.001) and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe (35.1 % vs. 10.7 %; p = 0.002). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were less likely to perceive PrEP as being moderately likely to increase risk behaviors ("risk compensation") (12.8 % vs. 28.8 %, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While most respondents were aware of PrEP, only one-third of PrEP-aware PCPs reported adoption. Adopters were more likely to have experience providing HIV care and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe, and were less likely to perceive PrEP use as leading to risk compensation. To enhance PCP adoption of PrEP, educational efforts targeting PCPs without HIV care experience should be considered, as well as training those with HIV care experience to be PrEP "clinical champions". Concerns about safety and risk compensation must also be addressed.

show abstract

“…We interpret this as a consequence of several factors (see also Dykema et al, 2011;Millar & Dillman, 2011). During its initial distribution, the mailed invitation provided an opportunity for respondents who received it to participate by turning to their computers and manually entering the URL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of E-Mailed Versus Mailed Invitations and Incentives on Response Rates, Data Quality, and Costs in a Web Survey of University Faculty

Dykema

Stevenson

Klein

et al. 2012

Social Science Computer Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a large literature indicates that using a mixed-mode approach to notify or contact potential respondents can be effective in increasing response rates, surprisingly little research examines the impact the mode of invitation has on participation in a web survey. To assess the effects of invitation mode on response rates, costs, and demographic representativeness, university faculty members (N ¼ 280) were randomly assigned to experimental groups and sent a mailed invitation letter and a $2 cash incentive; a mailed invitation letter only; or an e-mailed invitation. Nonresponding faculty received up to two reminders to participate, by e-mail. Results indicated that the response rates were higher for the groups invited using a postal letter, but the inclusion of $2 did not significantly increase the response rates. Consistent with expectations, while costs were higher for the mailed invitation groups, the mailed invitations improved the demographic representativeness of the respondents, especially for the $2 incentive group. This study builds on a small body of literature that explicitly examines the mode of invitation on survey participation in web surveys and adds to previous findings by examining costs and effects on the demographic representativeness of the respondents.

show abstract

Effects of Incentives and Prenotification on Response Rates and Costs in a National Web Survey of Physicians

Cited by 61 publications

References 15 publications

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study

A Cross-Sectional Online Survey of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Adoption Among Primary Care Physicians

Effects of E-Mailed Versus Mailed Invitations and Incentives on Response Rates, Data Quality, and Costs in a Web Survey of University Faculty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About