2010
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb04126.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Piling high: a general practice registrar's unsolicited mail

Abstract: Objective: Design, setting and participant: A mixed‐methods, prospective, descriptive study of unsolicited mail sent directly to a general practice registrar in a private general practice located in rural north Queensland, collected between 1 March and 30 September 2010. Main outcome measures: The amount, by number and weight, of unsolicited mail items, and the proportion of each document read, in total and by category. Results: 196 items of unsolicited mail, weighing 19.85 kg, were received over a period of 7… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Only a minority of respondents remained unaware of the 13vPCV supplementary dose program. However, there were no particular characteristics common to these providers highlighted in the available data so their lack of awareness may have simply been a result of the information getting lost in the large volume of material received by primary care providers, particularly GPs [ 31 ]. However, the level of awareness about the program does not take into consideration survey non-respondents, most of whom had not ordered 13vPCV vaccine by the end of the survey period, and who were thus likely unaware, or potentially unsupportive, of the 13vPCV supplementary dose program (non-response bias) [ 32 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only a minority of respondents remained unaware of the 13vPCV supplementary dose program. However, there were no particular characteristics common to these providers highlighted in the available data so their lack of awareness may have simply been a result of the information getting lost in the large volume of material received by primary care providers, particularly GPs [ 31 ]. However, the level of awareness about the program does not take into consideration survey non-respondents, most of whom had not ordered 13vPCV vaccine by the end of the survey period, and who were thus likely unaware, or potentially unsupportive, of the 13vPCV supplementary dose program (non-response bias) [ 32 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%