A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surveys of doctors are an important data collection method in health services research. Ways to improve response rates, minimise survey response bias and item non-response, within a given budget, have not previously been addressed in the same study. The aim of this paper is to compare the effects and costs of three different modes of survey administration in a national survey of doctors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A stratified random sample of 4.9% (2,702/54,160) of doctors undertaking clinical practice was drawn from a national directory of all doctors in Australia. Stratification was by four doctor types: general practitioners, specialists, specialists-in-training, and hospital non-specialists, and by six rural/remote categories. A three-arm parallel trial design with equal randomisation across arms was used. Doctors were randomly allocated to: online questionnaire (902); simultaneous mixed mode (a paper questionnaire and login details sent together) (900); or, sequential mixed mode (online followed by a paper questionnaire with the reminder) (900). Analysis was by intention to treat, as within each primary mode, doctors could choose either paper or online. Primary outcome measures were response rate, survey response bias, item non-response, and cost.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The online mode had a response rate 12.95%, followed by the simultaneous mixed mode with 19.7%, and the sequential mixed mode with 20.7%. After adjusting for observed differences between the groups, the online mode had a 7 percentage point lower response rate compared to the simultaneous mixed mode, and a 7.7 percentage point lower response rate compared to sequential mixed mode. The difference in response rate between the sequential and simultaneous modes was not statistically significant. Both mixed modes showed evidence of response bias, whilst the characteristics of online respondents were similar to the population. However, the online mode had a higher rate of item non-response compared to both mixed modes. The total cost of the online survey was 38% lower than simultaneous mixed mode and 22% lower than sequential mixed mode. The cost of the sequential mixed mode was 14% lower than simultaneous mixed mode. Compared to the online mode, the sequential mixed mode was the most cost-effective, although exhibiting some evidence of response bias.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Decisions on which survey mode to use depend on response rates, response bias, item non-response and costs. The sequential mixed mode appears to be the most cost-effective mode of survey administration for surveys of the population of doctors, if one is prepared to accept a degree of response bias. Online surveys are not yet suitable to be used exclusively for surveys of the doctor population.</p

Learning by exporting:lessons from high-technology SMEs

We investigate the learning by exporting hypothesis by examining the effect of exporting on the subsequent innovation performance of a sample of high-technology SMEs based in the UK. We find evidence of learning by exporting, but the pattern of this effect is complex. Exporting helps high-tech SMEs innovate subsequently, but does not make them more innovation intensive. There is evidence that consistent exposure to export markets helps firms overcome the innovation hurdle, but that there is a positive scale effect of exposure to export markets which allows innovative firms to sell more of their new-to-market products on entering export markets. Service sector firms are able to reap the benefits of exposure to export markets at an earlier (entry) stage of the internationalization process than are manufacturing firms. Innovation-intensive firms exhibit a different pattern of entry to and exit from export markets from low-intensity innovators, and this is reflected in different effects of exporting

Temporally correlated expression of nAChR genes during development of the mammalian retina

In situ hybridizations and RNase protection assays have been used to characterize nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) gene expression in the developing and adult rat retina. At the earliest time examined (embryonic day 13) a low level of [alpha]-3 and [beta]-4 gene expression could be detected. During the next 48 hr there was a dramatic induction of the [alpha]-3, [alpha]-4, [beta]-2, [beta]-3 and [beta]-4 genes in the recently differentiated retinal ganglion cells. By post-natal day 4 we detected nAChR gene expression in the inner nuclear layer. In the adult retina, in situ hybridizations showed these genes are expressed by cells residing in the ganglion and inner nuclear layers. These results suggest a common regulatory mechanism for the induction of nAChR expression in retinal ganglion cells during development. In addition, the variety of nAChR genes expressed in the retina imply a relatively large number of different types of nAChRs can be expressed by these cells.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/30138/1/0000515.pd

Quasi-Experimental Analysis of Targeted Economic Development Programs: Lessons from Florida

The authors highlight three sources of endogeneity bias that typically haunt analyses of local government policies, and offer an empirical methodology for estimating program impacts given such concerns. They investigate Florida’s experience with implementing two common targeted economic development policies, community redevelopment areas (CRAs) and enterprise zones (EZs). Developing a simple application decision model as a guide, they find significant differences in policy implementation for small cities compared with larger cities. Florida’s small-city program implementation offers a unique opportunity to compare areas that received state-level approval for the programs with all areas that qualified for but did not receive designation using a quasi-experimental framework. In so doing, the authors explicitly address the potential for endogeneity bias caused by programrationing on the part of administrators and by nonrandom targeting of distressed areas. Consistent with existing research, they do not find evidence validating the efficacy of targeted development programs for small cities.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline