• Jane S Hocking, Megan S C Lim, Tim Read, and Margaret Hellard.
• Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Research, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health and the School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. jhocking@unimelb.edu.au
• J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 May 1;59(5):521-4.

Background And ObjectivesTo compare general practitioner (GP) response to a telephone interview with response to a postal survey with three reminders in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsGPs were randomly assigned to either a telephone interview or a postal survey. GPs in the telephone group were mailed a letter of invitation and asked to undertake a telephone interview. GPs in the postal group were mailed a letter of invitation and questionnaire. Non-responders were sent up to three reminders, the final by registered post. Response rates were calculated for each group.Results416 GPs were randomized to the telephone interview and 451 to the postal survey. Eighty-six in the telephone group and 30 in the postal were ineligible. One hundred thirty-four GPs completed the telephone interview with a response rate of 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.3%, 46.1%). Two hundred fifty-two GPs completed the postal survey with a response rate of 59.9% (95%CI: 55.0%, 64.6%). The difference in response was 19.3% (95%CI: 12.2%, 26.3%).ConclusionsThese results show that postal surveys with three reminders can have superior response rates compared with a telephone interview.

14 keywords...

hide…