Although physician surveys are an important tool in health services and policy research, they are often characterized by low response rates. The authors conducted a systematic review of 66 published reports of efforts to improve response rates to physician surveys. Two general strategies were explored in this literature: incentive and design-based approaches. Even small financial incentives were found to be effective in improving physician response. Token nonmonetary incentives were much less effective. In terms of design strategies, postal and telephone strategies have generally been more successful than have fax or Web-based approaches, with evidence also supporting use of mixed-mode surveys in this population. In addition, use of first-class stamps on return envelopes and questionnaires designed to be brief, personalized, and endorsed by legitimizing professional associations were also more likely to be successful. Researchers should continue to implement design strategies that have been documented to improve the survey response of physicians.

Methodologies for Improving Response Rates in Surveys of Physicians A Systematic Review

Surveys involving health care providers are characterized by low and declining response rates (RRs), and researchers have utilized various strategies to increase survey RRs among health professionals. Based on 48 studies with 156 subgroups of within-study conditions, a multilevel meta-regression analysis was conducted to summarize the effects of different strategies employed in surveys of health professionals. An estimated overall survey RR among health professionals was 0.53 with a significant downward trend during the last half century. Of the variables that were examined, mode of data collection, incentives, and number of follow-up attempts were all found to be significantly related to RR. The mail survey mode was more effective in improving RR, compared to the online or web survey mode. Relative to the non-incentive subgroups, subgroups receiving monetary incentives were more likely to respond, while nonmonetary incentive groups were not significantly different from non-incentive groups. When number o...

Enhancing Surveys of Health Care Professionals: A Meta-Analysis of Techniques to Improve Response

Objective: To describe the current knowledge, attitudes, and practices of French general practitioners (GPs) in the field of adult overweight and obesity management.



Research Methods and Procedures: A cross-sectional telephone survey interviewed a sample of 600 GPs, representative of the private GPs in southeastern France. A four-part questionnaire assessed personal and professional characteristics, attitudes and opinions about overweight and obesity, relevant knowledge and training, and practices (diagnostic methods, clinical assessments, weight loss objectives, types of counseling).



Results: Most GPs knew that weight problems are health-threatening, and 79% agreed that managing these problems is part of their role. Nevertheless, 58% did not feel they perform this role effectively, and one-third did not find it professionally gratifying. Approximately 30% had negative attitudes toward overweight and obese patients; 57% were pessimistic about patients’ ability to lose weight; 64% often set weight loss objectives more demanding than guidelines call for; and neither food diaries nor nutritional education were used systematically. GPs’ feelings of effectiveness and attitudes toward obese patients were associated with some professional (training) and personal (BMI, personal diet experience) characteristics.



Discussion: GPs’ feelings of ineffectiveness may stem from an underlying conflict between practitioners’ and patients’ representations of weight problems and the relationship problems this causes. Inadequate practices and health care system organization may also play a role.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1038/oby.2005.89

Overweight and obesity: knowledge, attitudes, and practices of general practitioners in france.

Background. Evidence-based practice is one of the most important underlying principles in modern health care. In the United Kingdom, successive governments have highlighted the fact that a quality health service is built upon the use of best evidence. Health professionals are becoming more accountable within clinical governance structures for the care they provide. The need to use robust research findings effectively is a critical component of their role. However, studies show that a number of barriers prevent the effective use of best available evidence.

Aim.  This study aimed to identify barriers to evidence-based practice in primary care.

Method.  A specially designed questionnaire was used to gather respondents’ perceptions of the barriers to evidence-based practice. Data were collected in 2000/2001.

Findings.  Findings show that general practitioners (GPs) ranked barriers differently to community nurses. GPs believed that the most significant barriers to using evidence in practice were: the limited relevance of research to practice, keeping up with all the current changes in primary care, and the ability to search for evidence-based information. In contrast, the most significant barriers to the identified by community nurses were poor computer facilities, poor patient compliance and difficulties in influencing changes within primary care. This suggests that these two groups may require different strategies for barrier removal.

Conclusions.  Identifying barriers is just the first step to addressing issues surrounding the use of evidence-based practice. Extra resources will be needed if these barriers are to be tackled. However, if the resultant change improves the health and wellbeing of people and communities, then the extra costs would be offset by more efficient use of services.

Barriers to evidence-based practice in primary care

In the UK, researchers' access to study populations and control over selection of participants is becoming increasingly constrained by data protection and research governance legislation. Intervening stages placed between researchers and the population they wish to study can have serious effects on recruitment and ultimately on the validity of studies. In this paper we describe our experiences of gaining access to patients for a study of palliative care in primary care. Despite considerable time and resources dedicated to recruitment, a smaller than anticipated study sample was achieved. We found that gatekeeping by ethics committees and practitioner control over sample selection were significant hurdles in accessing patients for the study. Gatekeeping responsibilities represent considerable challenges for researchers seeking to obtain a representative study sample, not just in palliative care, but for research in general in health care.

Recruiting patients into a primary care based study of palliative care: why is it so difficult?:

Correlates of Physician Counseling Associated with Obesity and Smoking

Risk Prevalence and Screening for Cancer by General Practitioners

Screening for Cardiovascular-Disease and Risk Reduction Counseling Behaviors of General Practitioners

A stratified random sample of 655 Australian general practitioners (GPs) was surveyed to determine their attitudes, knowledge and behaviour in relation to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pandemic. Of the 486 respondents, 22% had one or more patients with HIV infection in their practice and 60% had been asked for information on HIV infection in the past month by at least one patient. The majority of respondents viewed screening and education of patients as part of their role, but 24% did not want to maintain a therapeutic relationship with HIV‐infected patients and 16% felt it was appropriate to refuse to treat this group. Although most respondents correctly identified the well known risk‐taking behaviours for HIV infection in homosexual men and intravenous drug users, they underestimated the risk to heterosexuals and exaggerated that associated with activities generally considered not to involve risk. The knowledge of appropriate infection control procedures of approximately 60% of the respondents was inadequate. A lack of time in consulting was the most commonly cited barrier to the routine assessment of, or enquiry into, risk‐taking behaviours of patients in the respondents' practices. Respondents noted that they required more knowledge of the clinical presentation and diagnosis of HIV infection, as well as education in counselling techniques and the risks of transmission associated with sexual and non‐sexual activities. They felt such information could best be imparted through printed material. These results indicate that most GPs are willing to play an active role in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of HIV disease, but they require more accurate information in order to fulfil this role appropriately. The study identifies and addresses several barriers to GPs playing a more active role in the management of HIV disease.

Attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of general practitioners ir relation to HIV infection and AIDS: Commonwealth AIDS Research Grant Committee Working Party

A clinical school for north Queensland.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Peter Mudge

Author Tools

Chat about Author