Related Experiment Videos
E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys
Rachelle Seguin1, Marshall Godwin, Susan MacDonald
1Centre for Studies in Primary Care, Department of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
Canadian Family Physician Medecin De Famille Canadien
|August 21, 2004
Summary
Email surveys yield faster responses from physicians but lower overall response rates compared to traditional mail. Email is superior for time-sensitive physician surveys, especially for open-ended questions.
Area of Science:
- Medical research methodology
- Health services research
Background:
- Physician surveys are crucial for healthcare research.
- Traditional mail surveys can be slow and costly.
- Emerging digital methods like email offer potential for faster data collection.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness of email versus regular mail for surveying physicians.
- To evaluate response rates, speed, and data quality between email and postal survey methods.
Main Methods:
- A randomized controlled trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada.
- Physicians from the College of Family Physicians of Canada database were randomly sampled.
- Surveys were delivered via both email and postal mail for direct comparison.
Main Results:
- Email achieved a lower overall response rate (33.6%) compared to postal mail (47.8%-52.7%).
- Email responses were received significantly faster than postal responses.
- Response completeness was similar across methods, but email yielded more frequent and longer comments for open-ended questions.
Conclusions:
- Email surveys offer a faster alternative for physician data collection, particularly when speed is critical.
- While email may result in fewer respondents, it enhances the richness of qualitative data from open-ended questions.
- Email is a viable and often superior method for time-sensitive physician surveys.