This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by VanDenKerkhof, E. G. Articles by Milne, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by VanDenKerkhof, E. G. Articles by Milne, B.

In Canada, anesthesiologists are less likely to respond to an electronic, compared to a paper questionnaire

[Au Canada, les anesthésiologistes sont moins enclins à répondre à un questionnaire électronique qu’à un questionnaire sur papier]

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Queen’s University, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Elizabeth VanDenKerkhof, Department of Anesthesiology, Queen’s University, Kingston General Hospital, 76 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 2V7, Canada. Phone: 613-549-6666, ext. 3964; Fax: 613-548-1375; E-mail: ev5{at}post.queensu.ca

Purpose: A randomized unblinded controlled trial was used to assess the utility of electronic questionnaires in a survey of Canadian anesthesiologists.

Methods: Postal or electronic questionnaires were sent between November 2001 and March 2002 to 1,333 anesthesiologists registered with the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society. The primary outcome measure was the difference in response rates between electronic and postal questionnaires. Secondary outcome measures included a comparison of demographic characteristics, cost, and knowledge and practice regarding prophylactic perioperative beta blockade.

Results: The overall response rate was 52%. E-mail participants were half as likely as postal participants to respond to the questionnaire (35% vs 69%, relative risk = 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.45–0.58). Respondents who provided an e-mail address were younger and more likely to be affiliated with an academic institution. There were no significant differences in responses to knowledge and practice questions. The electronic arm was faster than the postal arm and the cost per reply was one-third the cost of the postal arm ($2.50 vs $8.02).

Conclusions: Electronic surveys are a means of acquiring information from a large number of individuals in a rapid, efficient and cost-effective manner. This methodology may be particularly valid and useful in surveys of participants with similar backgrounds and internet access. However the lower response rates achieved as compared with postal surveys indicates a need to use vigilance when generalizing results to a broader population.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T.-H. Shih and Xitao Fan Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis Field Methods, August 1, 2008; 20(3): 249 - 271. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Crane, M. F. Daley, J. Barrow, C. Babbel, B. L. Beaty, J. F. Steiner, A. Kempe, L. Miriam Dickinson, and S. Stokley Sentinel Physician Networks as a Technique for Rapid Immunization Policy Surveys Eval Health Prof, March 1, 2008; 31(1): 43 - 64. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. B. VanGeest, T. P. Johnson, and V. L. Welch Methodologies for Improving Response Rates in Surveys of Physicians: A Systematic Review Eval Health Prof, December 1, 2007; 30(4): 303 - 321. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. L. Bailey, L. G. Glance, M. P. Eaton, B. Parshall, and S. McIntosh A Survey of the Use of Ultrasound During Central Venous Catheterization Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2007; 104(3): 491 - 497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]