Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals

Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss, Jon C Tilburt, Kandace Lackore, Sarah Jenkins, Katherine James, Timothy J. Beebe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Surveys are an important tool for assessing physician and nursing professionals’ practice patterns and guideline adherence. Obtaining quality survey data consisting of low item and unit nonresponse remains a persistent challenge in these populations. We tested the relative impact of two envelope types (padded vs. priority mail) on unit and item nonresponse in a survey of Minnesota health care workers. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey in one of two envelope types: a padded 8.5′′ × 11′′ envelope or a similarly sized priority mail envelope. After the first mailing, the response rate was 53.9% and did not differ across envelope conditions. Females and RNs were more likely to respond to the priority envelope than the padded envelope, but this finding did not hold in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in item nonresponse across the two envelope conditions. It may be that our two approaches were not enough to permeate the semi-porous membrane of gatekeeping that has been posited as a driver of low physician survey response rates relative to those observed in the general population. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that packaging may matter for some populations and not others.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)380-389
Number of pages10
JournalField Methods
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 3 2014

Fingerprint

health professionals
response behavior
physician
multivariate analysis
nursing
driver
health care
worker

Keywords

  • data collection
  • nurse surveys
  • physician surveys
  • response rates
  • survey research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anthropology

Cite this

Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Tilburt, J. C., Lackore, K., Jenkins, S., James, K., & Beebe, T. J. (2014). Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals. Field Methods, 26(4), 380-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X14527726

Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals. / Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y.; Tilburt, Jon C; Lackore, Kandace; Jenkins, Sarah; James, Katherine; Beebe, Timothy J.

In: Field Methods, Vol. 26, No. 4, 03.11.2014, p. 380-389.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ziegenfuss, JY, Tilburt, JC, Lackore, K, Jenkins, S, James, K & Beebe, TJ 2014, 'Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals', Field Methods, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 380-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X14527726
Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y. ; Tilburt, Jon C ; Lackore, Kandace ; Jenkins, Sarah ; James, Katherine ; Beebe, Timothy J. / Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals. In: Field Methods. 2014 ; Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 380-389.
@article{285a03f888dc40608de726e795a697be,
title = "Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals",
abstract = "Surveys are an important tool for assessing physician and nursing professionals’ practice patterns and guideline adherence. Obtaining quality survey data consisting of low item and unit nonresponse remains a persistent challenge in these populations. We tested the relative impact of two envelope types (padded vs. priority mail) on unit and item nonresponse in a survey of Minnesota health care workers. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey in one of two envelope types: a padded 8.5′′ × 11′′ envelope or a similarly sized priority mail envelope. After the first mailing, the response rate was 53.9{\%} and did not differ across envelope conditions. Females and RNs were more likely to respond to the priority envelope than the padded envelope, but this finding did not hold in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in item nonresponse across the two envelope conditions. It may be that our two approaches were not enough to permeate the semi-porous membrane of gatekeeping that has been posited as a driver of low physician survey response rates relative to those observed in the general population. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that packaging may matter for some populations and not others.",
keywords = "data collection, nurse surveys, physician surveys, response rates, survey research",
author = "Ziegenfuss, {Jeanette Y.} and Tilburt, {Jon C} and Kandace Lackore and Sarah Jenkins and Katherine James and Beebe, {Timothy J.}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1177/1525822X14527726",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "380--389",
journal = "Field Methods",
issn = "1525-822X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Envelope Type and Response Rates in a Survey of Health Professionals

AU - Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y.

AU - Tilburt, Jon C

AU - Lackore, Kandace

AU - Jenkins, Sarah

AU - James, Katherine

AU - Beebe, Timothy J.

PY - 2014/11/3

Y1 - 2014/11/3

N2 - Surveys are an important tool for assessing physician and nursing professionals’ practice patterns and guideline adherence. Obtaining quality survey data consisting of low item and unit nonresponse remains a persistent challenge in these populations. We tested the relative impact of two envelope types (padded vs. priority mail) on unit and item nonresponse in a survey of Minnesota health care workers. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey in one of two envelope types: a padded 8.5′′ × 11′′ envelope or a similarly sized priority mail envelope. After the first mailing, the response rate was 53.9% and did not differ across envelope conditions. Females and RNs were more likely to respond to the priority envelope than the padded envelope, but this finding did not hold in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in item nonresponse across the two envelope conditions. It may be that our two approaches were not enough to permeate the semi-porous membrane of gatekeeping that has been posited as a driver of low physician survey response rates relative to those observed in the general population. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that packaging may matter for some populations and not others.

AB - Surveys are an important tool for assessing physician and nursing professionals’ practice patterns and guideline adherence. Obtaining quality survey data consisting of low item and unit nonresponse remains a persistent challenge in these populations. We tested the relative impact of two envelope types (padded vs. priority mail) on unit and item nonresponse in a survey of Minnesota health care workers. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey in one of two envelope types: a padded 8.5′′ × 11′′ envelope or a similarly sized priority mail envelope. After the first mailing, the response rate was 53.9% and did not differ across envelope conditions. Females and RNs were more likely to respond to the priority envelope than the padded envelope, but this finding did not hold in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in item nonresponse across the two envelope conditions. It may be that our two approaches were not enough to permeate the semi-porous membrane of gatekeeping that has been posited as a driver of low physician survey response rates relative to those observed in the general population. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that packaging may matter for some populations and not others.

KW - data collection

KW - nurse surveys

KW - physician surveys

KW - response rates

KW - survey research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84912068897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84912068897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1525822X14527726

DO - 10.1177/1525822X14527726

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84912068897

VL - 26

SP - 380

EP - 389

JO - Field Methods

JF - Field Methods

SN - 1525-822X

IS - 4

ER -