Class of 2006 Abstract / Objectives: To describe the current response rate of pharmacists to mailed surveys and to identify the factors that influence pharmacist response rates. A number of hypotheses have been presented. Design: A systematic literature review. Methods: Included articles were evaluated for variables of interest using a data extraction form. Variables included length of survey, use of incentive, proximity, use of announcement, the anonymity of the survey, use of a reminder, and presence of return postage. Results: A total of 76 articles were identified of which 54 met inclusion criteria. The mean response rate for the survey was 45.8 percent. The effect on response rate was evaluated in regard to survey length, the inclusion of an incentive, and the geographical origination of the survey. The change in response rate for each single increase in the number of questions in a survey changed the response rate by 0.001 percent. Response rate for surveys without an incentive provided was 44.6 percent (SD = 0.168), while the response rate for those with an incentive was 50.7 percent (p > 0.277). Twenty seven surveys were deemed to seek responses from pharmacists in a close proximity to the organization sending out the survey (e.g., within the same state or region). Twenty-seven did not focus on a specific state or region. The mean response rates were 45.5 percent and 46.1 percent, respectively (p=0.882). There was no statistical significance in any of the other variables examined. Conclusions: This review of literature addressing pharmacist response rate to mailed surveys revealed that pharmacists’ response to surveys is not significantly affected by survey length, inclusion of an incentive, or survey origin.

The intent of this research was to examine variables that might influence the response rates to mailed questionnaires. The variables examined were the socioeconomic statuses of the subjects, the time of payment of a monetary incentive, and the amount of payment. Subjects were 375 residents of Cache County, Utah, selected from three levels of socioeconomic status. The subjects were selected on the basis of information they provided about their income and education levels during a telephone interview. Subjects within each level of socioeconomic status were further divided into four treatment groups and one control group. All groups were mailed the questionnaire. In addition, subjects in Group 1 were sent an enclosed $1, those in Group 2 received $2, those in Group 3 were promised $1 if they returned the completed questionnaire, those in Group 4 were similarly promised $2 if they returned a completed questionnaire, and subjects in Group 5 were neither paid nor promised any incentive. The questionnaire itself was developed with the help of Utah State University's Extension Services, who needed to survey the local population on issues pertaining to family and economic well-being. The response rate for the entire sample was 56.8%. Subjects from the high socioeconomic status group had the highest response rate, while subjects with the lowest socioeconomic status had the lowest response rate. Including the monetary incentive along with the questionnaire yielded a higher response rate than did promising an incentive for returning the questionnaire. Similarly, subjects receiving $2 had a higher response rate than those receiving $1. It was also found that the higher the socioeconomic status, the less the difference made by the time of payment of the incentive. When the cost effectiveness of the different treatments was analyzed it was found that at the higher levels of response rate, prepaying the incentive was a more efficient method, while promising the incentive proved cheaper at the lower levels of response rate.

The mailed questionnaire research process developed historically as part of the survey research movement, with guidelines and models drawn from an array of scientific research methods and disciplines. Although the mailed questionnaire has become one of the most popular research instruments for obtaining data beyond the reach of the observer, the response bias generated from the generally low return rate of the mailed questionnaire survey has remained a problem. For over three decades researchers have generated a plethora of research on the effectiveness of the various aspects of the mailed questionnaire process and the resultant impact of various constructs on survey return . But despite these efforts, researchers have not succeeded collectively in producing a clear, compelling, or consistent set of principles that, if followed, will produce high response rates in mailed questionnaire research . With the certainty that more knowledge and constructs will be generated in all areas of the mailed questionnaire process, scholars have issued a call for a viable theory to direct future research efforts on response rates . Therefore, the purpose of this study was to address that need . The dissertation research reported in this paper accomplished five major objectives. It (a) developed an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for the mailed questionnaire process; (b) identified 13 determinants of response costs in the mailed questionnaire process; (c) proposed immediacy and salience as the most significant determinant variables of response rates, from a synthesis of the research literature with the theoretical framework; (d) proposed a theory and theoretical model that explain and illustrate the interaction of immediacy and salience in determining response rate levels; and (e) recommended a method for testing the proposed theory and for utilizing the proposed theory to achieve high response rates in future mailed questionnaire studies.

No description available.