Six ways to maximize survey response rates: lessons from a medical school accreditation survey in a Canadian setting

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.75380

Abstract

Background: Surveys are being increasingly used to gather feedback and study data in healthcare professions. However, it may be challenging to achieve high response rates in surveys administered to healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to report six strategies that contributed to a high response rate on the Independent Student Analysis at the University of Toronto (U of T), which can be applied to other surveys to achieve strong response rates amongst healthcare professionals.

Methods: In 2019, as part of accreditation for the U of T MD Program, we conducted the Independent Student Analysis, a student-led survey examining a medical student’s experience. We review and critically evaluate the factors that contributed to a robust response rate amongst one of the largest cohorts of medical students in Canada.

Results: Among 1080 students in the MD program, we achieved an unprecedented response rate of 87.2%. Six factors were identified that most contributed to our high response rate, including: faculty support, student representation, eliciting participant feedback, creating protected time for completion, offering incentives, and generating awareness.

Conclusions: Eliciting high survey response rates from medical learners can be challenging. However, with careful consideration of learner feedback and effective employment of the strategies discussed in this paper, medical school faculty may better engage students in survey completion, achieving higher response rates and gathering richer insight, which can be used to more effectively enact meaningful change amongst healthcare professionals.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Van Mol C. Improving web survey efficiency: the impact of an extra reminder and reminder content on web survey response. Int J Soc Res. 2017; 20: 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1185255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1185255

Grava-Gubins I and Scott S. Effects of various methodologic strategies: survey response rates among Canadian physicians and physicians-in-training. Can Fam Physician 2008; 54: 1424-1430.

Johnson TP and Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA 2012; 307: 1805-1806. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.3532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.3532

Meterko M, Restuccia JD, Stolzmann K, et al. Response rates, nonresponse bias, and data quality: results from a national survey of senior healthcare leaders. Public Opinion Quarterly 2015; 79: 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu052

Fan W and Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 2010; 26: 132-139. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015

Nair CS, Adams P and Mertova P. Student engagement: the key to improving survey response rates. Qual High Educ. 2008; 14: 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802507505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802507505

Rolstad S, Adler J and Rydén A. Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health 2011; 14: 1101-1108. 20110802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003

Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009: Mr000008. 20090708. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000008.pub4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4

Jia P, Furuya-Kanamori L, Qin ZS, et al. Association between response rates and monetary incentives in sample study: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J 2021; 97: 501-510. 20200826. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-137868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-137868

Javidan AP, Raveendran L, Rai Y, et al. Fostering trust, collaboration, and a culture of continuous quality improvement: a call for transparency in medical school accreditation. Can Med Educ J 2020; 11: e102-e108. 20200923. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.70061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.70061

Downloads

Published

2023-03-07

How to Cite

1.
Javidan AP, Rai Y, Cheung J, Patel RV, Kulasegaram KM. Six ways to maximize survey response rates: lessons from a medical school accreditation survey in a Canadian setting. Can. Med. Ed. J [Internet]. 2023 Mar. 7 [cited 2024 Jul. 14];14(3):107-10. Available from: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/75380

Issue

Section

Black Ice

Most read articles by the same author(s)