부산대학교 도서관

PURPOSE: To establish a baseline overall response rate for surveys of health professions trainees, determine strategies associated with improved response rates, and evaluate for the presence of nonresponse bias. METHOD: The authors performed a comprehensive analysis of all articles published in Academic Medicine, Medical Education, and Advances in Health Sciences Education in 2013, recording response rates. Additionally, they reviewed nonresponse bias analyses and factors suggested in other fields to affect response rate including survey delivery method, prenotification, and incentives. RESULTS: The search yielded 732 total articles; of these, 356 were research articles, and of these, 185 (52.0%) used at least one survey. Of these, 66 articles (35.6%) met inclusion criteria and yielded 73 unique surveys. Of the 73 surveys used, investigators reported a response rate for 63.0% of them; response rates ranged from 26.6% to 100%, mean (standard deviation) 71.3% (19.5%). Investigators reported using incentives for only 16.4% of the 73 surveys. The only survey methodology factor significantly associated with response rate was single- vs. multi-institutional surveys (respectively, 74.6% [21.2%] vs. 62.0% [12.8%], P = .022). Notably, statistical power for all analyses was limited. No articles evaluated for nonresponse bias. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of the articles evaluated used a survey as part of their methods. Limited data are available to establish a baseline response rate among health professions trainees and inform researchers which strategies are associated with higher response rates. Journals publishing survey-based health professions education research should improve reporting of response rate, nonresponse bias, and other survey factors.