Evaluating strategies to recruit health researchers to participate in online survey research.
Health researchers
Meta-research
Motivation
Multiphase optimization strategy
Recruitment
Survey
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jul 2024
18 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
02
04
2024
accepted:
05
07
2024
medline:
19
7
2024
pubmed:
19
7
2024
entrez:
18
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects. A 2 Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35-2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38-0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39-2.23, p < 0.05). There was a significant negative interaction effect between the altruistic appeal and egoistic messaging strategies for survey completion outcome. Monetary incentives did not a have a significant impact on survey completion. Intrinsic motivation is likely to be a greater driver of health researcher participation in survey research than extrinsic motivation. Altruistic and egoistic messaging may differentially impact initial interest and survey completion and when combined may lead to improved rates of recruitment, but not survey completion. Further research is needed to determine how to best optimize message content and whether the effects observed are modified by survey burden.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects.
METHODS
METHODS
A 2
RESULTS
RESULTS
Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35-2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38-0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39-2.23, p < 0.05). There was a significant negative interaction effect between the altruistic appeal and egoistic messaging strategies for survey completion outcome. Monetary incentives did not a have a significant impact on survey completion.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Intrinsic motivation is likely to be a greater driver of health researcher participation in survey research than extrinsic motivation. Altruistic and egoistic messaging may differentially impact initial interest and survey completion and when combined may lead to improved rates of recruitment, but not survey completion. Further research is needed to determine how to best optimize message content and whether the effects observed are modified by survey burden.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39026149
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02275-6
pii: 10.1186/s12874-024-02275-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
153Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : 1 K01 AG075169-01A1
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ioannidis JP, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of Research methods and practices. PLOS Biol. 2015;13(10):e1002264.
pubmed: 26431313
pmcid: 4592065
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264
Harpe SE. Meta-research in pharmacy: time for a look in the mirror. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(12):2028–35.
pubmed: 33893054
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.04.006
Evans JR, Mathur A. The value of online surveys: a look back and a look ahead. Internet Res. 2018;28:854–87.
doi: 10.1108/IntR-03-2018-0089
Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ. 2008;33(3):301–14.
doi: 10.1080/02602930701293231
Bettaieb J, Cherif I, kharroubi G, Mrabet A. Attitudes towards plagiarism among academics of the faculty of Medicine of Tunis. Acc Res. 2020;27(8):521–37.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1780426
Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat. 2008;61(8):1139–60.
doi: 10.1177/0018726708094863
Cycyota CS, Harrison DA. What (not) to expect when surveying executives: a meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organ Res Methods. 2006;9(2):133–60.
doi: 10.1177/1094428105280770
Wu M-J, Zhao K, Fils-Aime F. Response rates of online surveys in published research: a meta-analysis. Computers Hum Behav Rep. 2022;7:100206.
doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206
Cherney A, Head B, Povey J, Boreham P, Ferguson M. The utilisation of social science research – the perspectives of academic researchers in Australia. J Sociol. 2015;51(2):252–70.
doi: 10.1177/1440783313505008
Haven TL, Tijdink JK, Pasman HR, Widdershoven G, ter Riet G, Bouter LM. Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4(1):25.
pubmed: 31819806
pmcid: 6886174
doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7
van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK. How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment. J Technol Transf. 2021;46(6):1917–48.
doi: 10.1007/s10961-020-09833-2
Stevens ER, Shelley D, Boden-Albala B. Unrecognized implementation science engagement among health researchers in the USA: a national survey. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:39.
pubmed: 32885196
pmcid: 7427926
doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00027-3
Børing P, Flanagan K, Gagliardi D, Kaloudis A, Karakasidou A. International mobility: findings from a survey of researchers in the EU. Sci Public Policy. 2015;42(6):811–26.
Phillips WR, Sturgiss E, Hunik L, Glasziou P, Hartman To, Orkin A, et al. Improving the reporting of primary care research: An international survey of researchers. J Am Board Family Med. 2021;34(1):12.
doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.01.200266
Macdonald S, Jarvis L, Lavis SM. Cyberterrorism Today? Findings from a follow-on survey of researchers. Stud Confl Terrorism. 2022;45(8):727–52.
doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2019.1696444
Aas SN, Distefano MB, Pettersen I, Gravrok B, Nordvoll LY, Bjaastad JF, Grimsgaard S. Patient and public involvement in health research in Norway: a survey among researchers and patient organisations. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):48.
pubmed: 37422661
pmcid: 10329785
doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00458-x
Swauger S, Vision TJ. What factors influence where researchers deposit their data? A survey of researchers submitting to data repositories. Int J Digit Curation. 2015;10(1):68–81.
doi: 10.2218/ijdc.v10i1.289
Tawfik GM, Giang HTN, Ghozy S, Altibi AM, Kandil H, Le H-H, Eid PS, Radwan I, Makram OM, Hien TTT, et al. Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):213.
pubmed: 32842968
pmcid: 7448304
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01094-9
Kelly DC, Agnes G, Manoj ML, Danielle BR, Hana R, David M. Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e026516.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516
Martin BR. The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Res Evaluation. 2011;20(3):247–54.
doi: 10.3152/095820211X13118583635693
Surratt CK, Kamal KM, Wildfong PLD. Research funding expectations as a function of faculty teaching/administrative workload. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2011;7(2):192–201.
pubmed: 21272546
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.04.006
Nassar AK, Waheed A, Tuma F. Academic clinicians’ workload challenges and burnout analysis. Cureus 2019, 11(11).
Akca M, Küçükoğlu MT. Relationships Between Mental Workload, Burnout, and Job Performance: A Research Among Academicians. In: Research Anthology on Changing Dynamics of Diversity and Safety in the Workforce edn. Edited by Management Association IR. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global; 2022: 877–897.
Rafsanjani MA, Pamungkas HP, Prakoso AF, Sholikhah N. Does teacher-researcher role conflict influence psychological well-being among the lecturers. Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Tarbiyah. 2020;5(2):287–96.
doi: 10.24042/tadris.v5i2.6091
Mortier A, Levecque K, Wille L. Under pressure? Doctorate holders’ satisfaction with their workload in academia and beyond. ECOOM Briefs. 2022;(40).
Boitet LM, Meese KA, Colón-López A, Schwiebert LM, Rogers DA. An investigation of Organizational correlates of Distress in Non-clinician Biomedical Researchers in the United States. J Multidisciplinary Healthc. 2023;16(null):333–43.
doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S399517
Cagnazzo C, Campora S, Pirondi S, Guarrera A, Nuzzo A, Gentili G, Taverniti C, Manuela M, Filippi R. 1433P - burnout syndrome: what impact on clinical research? Ann Oncol. 2017;28:v510.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx384.010
Herbert DL, Coveney J, Clarke P, Graves N, Barnett AG. The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e004462.
pubmed: 24682577
pmcid: 3975760
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004462
Lane TS, Armin J, Gordon JS. Online recruitment methods for web-based and mobile health studies: a review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(7):e183.
pubmed: 26202991
pmcid: 4527014
doi: 10.2196/jmir.4359
McLeod CC, Klabunde CN, Willis GB, Stark D. Health care provider surveys in the United States, 2000–2010: a review. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(1):106–26.
pubmed: 23378504
doi: 10.1177/0163278712474001
Cho YI, Johnson TP, VanGeest JB. Enhancing surveys of Health Care professionals:a Meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(3):382–407.
pubmed: 23975761
doi: 10.1177/0163278713496425
Martins Y, Lederman RI, Lowenstein CL, Joffe S, Neville BA, Hastings BT, Abel GA. Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(6):1021–6.
pubmed: 22374464
pmcid: 3304407
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.28
Cook JV, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP. Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):160.
pubmed: 19751504
pmcid: 2758861
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-160
Hutchinson MK, Sutherland MA. Conducting surveys with multidisciplinary health care providers: current challenges and creative approaches to sampling, recruitment, and data collection. Res Nurs Health. 2019;42(6):458–66.
pubmed: 31400022
doi: 10.1002/nur.21976
James KM, Ziegenfuss JY, Tilburt JC, Harris AM, Beebe TJ. Getting physicians to respond: the impact of incentive type and timing on physician survey response rates. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(1 Pt 1):232–42.
pubmed: 20880042
pmcid: 3034272
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01181.x
Brtnikova M, Crane LA, Allison MA, Hurley LP, Beaty BL, Kempe A. A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0202755.
pubmed: 30138406
pmcid: 6107210
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202755
Sammut R, Griscti O, Norman IJ. Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;123:104058.
pubmed: 34454334
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104058
Singer E, Ye C. The Use and effects of incentives in surveys. ANNALS Am Acad Political Social Sci. 2012;645(1):112–41.
doi: 10.1177/0002716212458082
Conn KM, Mo CH, Sellers LM. When less is more in boosting Survey Response Rates*. Soc Sci Q. 2019;100(4):1445–58.
doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12625
Kam CD, Wilking JR, Zechmeister EJ. Beyond the narrow data base: another convenience sample for experimental research. Polit Behav. 2007;29:415–40.
doi: 10.1007/s11109-007-9037-6
Collins LM. Optimization of behavioral, biobehavioral, and biomedical interventions: the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST). Springer; 2018.
Qualtrics XM. The leading experience management software. https://www.qualtrics.com/ .
R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ .
Searle SR, Speed FM, Milliken GA. Population marginal means in the Linear Model: an alternative to least squares means. Am Stat. 1980;34(4):216–21.
doi: 10.1080/00031305.1980.10483031
emmeans. Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans .
Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan M, Nazareth I. Effects of a financial incentive on Health Researchers’ response to an online survey: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2):e13.
pubmed: 20457556
pmcid: 2885780
doi: 10.2196/jmir.1251
Wenemark M, Vernby Å, Norberg AL. Can incentives undermine intrinsic motivation to participate in epidemiologic surveys? Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(4):231–5.
pubmed: 20157845
doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9434-8
Pedersen MJ, Nielsen CV. Improving Survey Response Rates in Online panels:effects of low-cost incentives and cost-free text appeal interventions. Social Sci Comput Rev. 2016;34(2):229–43.
doi: 10.1177/0894439314563916
VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30(4):303–21.
pubmed: 17986667
doi: 10.1177/0163278707307899
Halpern SD, Kohn R, Dornbrand-Lo A, Metkus T, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Lottery-based versus fixed incentives to increase clinicians’ response to surveys. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(5):1663–74.
pubmed: 21492159
pmcid: 3207198
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01264.x
Leung GM, Johnston JM, Saing H, Tin KY, Wong IO, Ho L-M. Prepayment was superior to postpayment cash incentives in a randomized postal survey among physicians. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(8):777–84.
pubmed: 15485729
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.021
Wiant K, Geisen E, Creel D, Willis G, Freedman A, de Moor J, Klabunde C. Risks and rewards of using prepaid vs. postpaid incentive checks on a survey of physicians. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:1–6.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0565-z
Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(6):627–68. discussion 692–700.
pubmed: 10589297
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
LaRose R, Tsai H-yS. Completion rates and non-response error in online surveys: comparing sweepstakes and pre-paid cash incentives in studies of online behavior. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;34:110–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.017
Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2007.