Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Cancer

Date Submitted: May 7, 2021
Date Accepted: Jun 15, 2021
Date Submitted to PubMed: Aug 12, 2021

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Hathaway CA, Chavez MN, Kadono M, Ketcher D, Rollison DE, Siegel EM, Peoples AR, Ulrich CM, Penedo FJ, Tworoger SS, Gonzalez BD

Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

JMIR Cancer 2021;7(3):e30265

DOI: 10.2196/30265

PMID: 34156965

PMCID: 8360334

Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Study

  • Cassandra A Hathaway; 
  • Melody N Chavez; 
  • Mika Kadono; 
  • Dana Ketcher; 
  • Dana E Rollison; 
  • Erin M Siegel; 
  • Anita R Peoples; 
  • Cornelia M Ulrich; 
  • Frank J Penedo; 
  • Shelley S Tworoger; 
  • Brian D Gonzalez

ABSTRACT

Background:

Surveys play a vital role in cancer research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of electronic surveys is crucial to improve understanding of the patient experience. However, response rates to electronic survey are often lower compared to paper surveys.

Objective:

Our goal was to determine the best approach to improve response rates for an electronic survey administered to patients at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods:

We contacted 2,750 patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center in the prior five years via email to complete a survey regarding their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients randomly assigned to a series of variations of pre-notifications (i.e., postcard, letter) or incentives (i.e., small gift, modest gift card). In total, eight combinations were evaluated. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the level of patient understanding and burden with the survey, and quantitative analysis evaluated the response rates between conditions.

Results:

A total of 262 (9.5%) patients completed the survey, and 9 participated in a qualitative interview. Interviews revealed minimal barriers in understanding or burden and resulted in minor survey design changes. Compared to sending an email only, sending a postcard or letter prior to the email improved response rates from 3.7% to 9.8%. Similarly, inclusion of an incentive significantly increased response the rate from 5.4% to 16.7%, especially among racial (3.0% to 12.2%) and ethnic minorities (6.4% to 21.0%) as well as patients with low socioeconomic status (3.1% to 14.9%).

Conclusions:

Strategies to promote effective response rates include pre-notification postcards or letters as well as monetary incentives. This work can inform future survey development to increase response rates for electronic surveys, particularly among hard-to-reach populations.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Hathaway CA, Chavez MN, Kadono M, Ketcher D, Rollison DE, Siegel EM, Peoples AR, Ulrich CM, Penedo FJ, Tworoger SS, Gonzalez BD

Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study

JMIR Cancer 2021;7(3):e30265

DOI: 10.2196/30265

PMID: 34156965

PMCID: 8360334

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.