Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating Response Bias in an Information Technology Survey of Physicians

  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring the diffusion of electronic health records (EHR) into ambulatory clinical practice has important policy implications. However, estimates of EHR use are typically derived from survey data and may be subject to significant response bias. The current study is a retrospective analysis testing for response bias in a large information technology survey of physicians (n=14,921). To detect bias, respondents were compared to nonrespondents on known characteristics. Moreover, early respondents were compared to late respondents with respect to key variables in the survey that are likely to influence participation. The 4203 respondents (28.2% participation rate) did not differ demographically from nonrespondents. Response rates, by specialty, differed slightly. When comparing early and late survey respondents, no differences were detected in EHR use, length of time since EHR installation, practice size, physician age, years since medical school graduation, and years of practice in their current community. Overall, response bias was not detected using established methodologies in this mailed survey of physician EHR use. Similar surveys of physicians, even with a lower than expected response rate, may still be valid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aspden P. and Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Committee on Data Standards for Patient Safety, NetLibrary Inc., Patient Safety Achieving a New Standard for Care, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brailer D J. The Decade of Health Information Technology: Delivering Consumer-Centric and Information-Rich Health Care, Office for the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Washington, DC, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Audet AM, Doty MM, Peugh J, Shamasdin J, Zapert K, and Schoenbaum S, Information technologies: When will they make it into physicians' black bags? Med. Gen. Med. 6(4):2, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andrews JE, Pearce KA, Sydney C, Ireson C, and Love M, Current state of information technology use in a US primary care practice-based research network. Inform. Prim. Care 12(1):11–18, 2004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burt CW and Hing E, Use of computerized clinical support systems in medical settings: United States, 2001–03. Adv. Data (353):1–8, 2005.

  6. Miller RH, Hillman JM, and Given RS, Physician use of IT: Results from the Deloitte Research Survey. J. Healthcare Inform. Manage. 18(1):72–80, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Versel N, Connect the docs. Study shows IT issues could create common ground for physicians and hospitals. Mod. Healthcare 34(8):46–48, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dillman DA, Mail and Telephone Surveys, Wiley, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yu J and Cooper A, A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. J. Market. Res. 20:36–44, 1983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Groves R, Fowler F, Couper M, Lepkowski J, Singer E, and Tourangeau R, Survey Methodology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Goyder J, Nonresponse effects on relationships between variables. Public Opin. Quart. 40:360–369, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Finlay J and Thistlethwaite PC, Applying mail response enhancement techniques to health care surveys: A cost-benefit approach. Health Mark Q. 10(1/2):91–102, 1992.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, and Christakis NA, Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50(10):1129–1136, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ulrich CM, Danis M, Koziol D, Garrett-Mayer E, Hubbard R, and Grady C, Does it pay to pay?: A randomized trial of prepaid financial incentives and lottery incentives in surveys of nonphysician healthcare professionals. Nurs. Res. 54(3):178–183, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kellerman SE, and Herold J, Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am. J. Prev. Med. 20(1):61–67, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Martin B, Don't Survey Physicians!, American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sudman S, Mail surveys of reluctant professionals. Eval. Rev. 9:349–360, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Asch DA, Christakis NA, and Ubel PA, Conducting physician mail surveys on a limited budget. A randomized trial comparing $2 bill versus $5 bill incentives. Med. Care 36(1):95–99, 1998.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansen M H, and Hurwitz W, The problem of nonresponse in sample surveys. JAMA 41:517–529, 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Etter JF and Perneger TV, Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health survey. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50(10):1123–1128, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ygge BM and Arnetz JE, A study of non-response in a questionnaire survey of parents’ views of paediatric care. J. Nurs. Manage. 12(1):5–12, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hikmet N and Chen SK, An investigation into low mail survey response rates of information technology users in health care organizations. Int. J. Med. Inform. 72(1–3):29–34, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferber, R., The problem of bias in mail returns: A solution. Public Opin. Quart. 12:669–676, 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Siemiatycki J and Campbell S, Nonresponse bias and early versus all responders in mail and telephone surveys. Am. J. Epidemiol. 120(2):291–301, 1984.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lin IF and Schaeffer NC, Using survey participants to estimate the impact on nonparticipation. Public Opin. Quart. 59:236–258, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Morrill R, Cromartie J, and Hart L, Metropolitan, urban, and rural commuting areas: Toward a better depiction of the U.S. settlement system. Urban Geogr. 20(8):727–748, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pasko T and Smart D, Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US, American Medical Association, Chicago, 2004.

  28. Carney PA, Poor DA, Schifferdecker KE, Gephart DS, Brooks WB, and Nierenberg DW, Computer use among community-based primary care physician preceptors. Acad. Med. 79(6):580–590, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lahaut VM, Jansen HA, van de Mheen D, and Garretsen HF, Non-response bias in a sample survey on alcohol consumption. Alcohol Alcohol. 37(3):256–260, 2002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grotzinger KM, Stuart BC, and Ahern F, Assessment and control of nonresponse bias in a survey of medicine use by the elderly. Med. Care 32(10):989–1003, 1994.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sheikh K and Mattingly S, Investigating non-response bias in mail surveys. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 35(4):293–296, 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McCall N, Khatutsky G, Smith K, and Pope GC, Estimation of non-response bias in the Medicare FFS HOS. Health Care Financ. Rev. 25(4):27–41, 2004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mott DA, Pedersen CA, Doucette WR, Gaither CA, and Schommer JC, A national survey of U.S. pharmacists in 2000: Assessing nonresponse bias of a survey methodology. AAPS Pharm. Sci. 3(4):E33, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Thomsen S, An examination of nonresponse in a work environment questionnaire mailed to psychiatric health care personnel. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5(1):204–210, 2000.

    Article  PubMed  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, Florida State University, 1115 West Call Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32306, USA

    Nir Menachemi & Robert G. Brooks

  2. College of Business Administration, University of South Florida, Sarasota, Florida, USA

    Neset Hikmet

  3. Florida State University Survey Research Laboratory, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

    Mary Stutzman

Authors
  1. Nir Menachemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neset Hikmet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Stutzman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert G. Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nir Menachemi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Menachemi, N., Hikmet, N., Stutzman, M. et al. Investigating Response Bias in an Information Technology Survey of Physicians. J Med Syst 30, 277–282 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-005-9009-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-005-9009-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation