Search

As members of a university community that sponsors animal research, we developed a survey to improve our knowledge about factors underlying the perceived justifiability of animal research among faculty and undergraduate students. To accomplish this objective, we gathered quantitative data about their general views on animal use by humans, their specific views about the use of different species to address different categories of scientific questions, and their confidence in the translatability of animal research to humans. Students and faculty did not differ in their reported levels of concern for the human use of animals, but women reported significantly higher levels of concern than men. Among students, experience with animal research was positively correlated with less concern with animal use, and having practiced vegetarianism or veganism was associated with more concern. Gender, experience with animal research, and dietary preferences were similarly correlated with the extent of justifiability of animal use across all research purposes and species. Faculty responses resembled those for students, with the exception that justifiability varied significantly based on academic discipline: biological sciences faculty were least concerned about human use of animals and most supportive of animal research regardless of purpose or species. For both students and faculty, justifiability varied depending on research purpose or animal species. Research purposes, ranked in order of justifiability from high to low, was animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, animal production, chemical testing, and cosmetics. Justifiability by purpose was slightly lower for students than for faculty. Species justifiability for students, from high to low, was small fish, rats or mice, pigs or sheep, monkeys, and dogs or cats. Faculty order was the same except that monkeys and dogs or cats were reversed in order. Finally, confidence in the translatability of animal research to our understanding of human biology and medicine was not different between students and faculty or between genders, but among faculty it was highest in biological sciences followed by physical sciences, social sciences, and then arts and humanities. Those with experience in animal research displayed the most confidence, and vegetarians/vegans displayed the least. These findings demonstrate that, although the range of views in any subcategory is large, views about animal research justifiability can vary significantly among respondent subpopulations in predictable ways. In particular, research purpose and choice of animal species are important variables for many people. This supports the claim that ensuring purpose and species are robustly integrated into research proposal reviews and approvals should be considered to be a best practice. We suggest that strengthening this integration beyond what is described in current regulations would better meet the justifiability criteria expressed by members of our campus community.

Following calls for replication of research studies, this study documents the results of two studies that experimentally examine the impact of response option order on self-rated health (SRH). Two studies from an online panel survey examined how the order of response options (positive to negative versus negative to positive) influences the distribution of SRH answers. The results of both studies indicate that the distribution of SRH varies across the experimental treatments, and mean SRH is lower (worse) when the response options start with “poor” rather than “excellent.” In addition, there are differences across the two studies in the distribution of SRH and mean SRH when the response options begin with “excellent,” but not when the response options begin with “poor.” The similarities in the general findings across the two studies strengthen the claim that SRH will be lower (worse) when the response options are ordered beginning with “poor” rather than “excellent” in online self-administered questionnaires, with implications for the validity of SRH. The slight differences in the administration of the seemingly identical studies further strengthen the claim and also serve as a reminder of the inherent variability of a single permutation of any given study.

Background Self-rated health (SRH) is widely used to measure subjective health. Yet it is unclear what underlies health ratings, with implications for understanding the validity of SRH overall and across sociodemographic characteristics. We analyze participants’ explanations of how they formulated their SRH answer in addition to which health factors they considered and examine group differences in these processes. Methods Cognitive interviews were conducted with 64 participants in a convenience quota sample crossing dimensions of race/ethnicity (white, Latino, black, American Indian), gender, age, and education. Participants rated their health then described their thoughts when answering SRH. We coded participants’ answers in an inductive, iterative, and systematic process from interview transcripts, developing analytic categories (i.e., themes) and subdimensions within. We examined whether the presence of each dimension of an analytic category varied across sociodemographic groups. Results Our qualitative analysis led to the identification and classification of various subdimensions of the following analytic categories: types of health factors mentioned, valence of health factors, temporality of health factors, conditional health statements, and descriptions and definitions of health. We found differences across groups in some types of health factors mentioned—corresponding, conflicting, or novel with respect to prior research. Furthermore, we also documented various processes through which respondents integrate seemingly disparate health factors to formulate an answer through valence and conditional health statements. Finally, we found some evidence of sociodemographic group differences with respect to types of health factors mentioned, valence of health factors, and conditional health statements, highlighting avenues for future research. Conclusion This study provides a description of how participants rate their general health status and highlights potential differences in these processes across sociodemographic groups, helping to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how SRH functions as a measure of health.

This study aims to assess the impact of response option order and question order on the distribution of responses to the self-rated health (SRH) question and the relationship between SRH and other health-related measures.In an online panel survey, we implement a 2-by-2 between-subjects factorial experiment, manipulating the following levels of each factor: (1) order of response options ("excellent" to "poor" versus "poor" to "excellent") and (2) order of SRH item (either preceding or following the administration of domain-specific health items). We use Chi-square difference tests, polychoric correlations, and differences in means and proportions to evaluate the effect of the experimental treatments on SRH responses and the relationship between SRH and other health measures.Mean SRH is higher (better health) and proportion in "fair" or "poor" health lower when response options are ordered from "excellent" to "poor" and SRH is presented first compared to other experimental treatments. Presenting SRH after domain-specific health items increases its correlation with these items, particularly when response options are ordered "excellent" to "poor." Among participants with the highest level of current health risks, SRH is worse when it is presented last versus first.While more research on the presentation of SRH is needed across a range of surveys, we suggest that ordering response options from "poor" to "excellent" might reduce positive clustering. Given the question order effects found here, we suggest presenting SRH before domain-specific health items in order to increase inter-survey comparability, as domain-specific health items will vary across surveys.

Objective To report the current state of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in veterinary surgical practice in 2010. Study Design Electronic questionnaire. Sample Population Diplomates and residents of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS). Methods A survey (38 questions for Diplomates, 23 questions for residents) was sent electronically to 1216 Diplomates and 300 residents. Questions were organized into 5 categories to investigate: (1) caseload and distribution of MIS cases; (2) MIS training; (3) MIS benefits, morbidity, limitations and motivating factors; (4) ACVS role; and (5) demographics of the study population. Results Eighty-six percent of small animal (SA) Diplomates, 99% of large animal (LA) Diplomates, and 98% of residents had performed MIS. Median LA caseload (30 cases/year; range, 1–600) was significantly higher than SA caseload (20 cases/year; range, 1–350). Descending order of case distribution was: arthroscopy > laparoscopy > endoscopic upper airway > thoracoscopy. Sixty percent of Diplomates and 98% of residents received MIS training during their residency. Residents' perspective of MIS training proficiency was positively correlated to caseload. Ninety-five percent of all respondents felt postoperative morbidity was less with MIS, and were motivated by patient benefits, maintaining a high standard of care, and personal interests. Fifty-eight percent of Diplomates and 89% of residents felt ACVS should be involved in developing MIS training. Conclusions MIS is widely used by ACVS Diplomates and residents in clinical practice; however, important differences exist between SA and LA surgeons and practice types. MIS training in partnership with the ACVS is needed for continued development in veterinary surgery.

While a large literature indicates that using a mixed-mode approach to notify or contact potential respondents can be effective in increasing response rates, surprisingly little research examines the impact the mode of invitation has on participation in a web survey. To assess the effects of invitation mode on response rates, costs, and demographic representativeness, university faculty members ( N = 280) were randomly assigned to experimental groups and sent a mailed invitation letter and a $2 cash incentive; a mailed invitation letter only; or an e-mailed invitation. Nonresponding faculty received up to two reminders to participate, by e-mail. Results indicated that the response rates were higher for the groups invited using a postal letter, but the inclusion of $2 did not significantly increase the response rates. Consistent with expectations, while costs were higher for the mailed invitation groups, the mailed invitations improved the demographic representativeness of the respondents, especially for the $2 incentive group. This study builds on a small body of literature that explicitly examines the mode of invitation on survey participation in web surveys and adds to previous findings by examining costs and effects on the demographic representativeness of the respondents.

The self-reported health question summarizes information about health status across several domains of health and is widely used to measure health because it predicts mortality well. We examine whether interactional behaviors produced by respondents and interviewers during the self-reported health question-answer sequence reflect complexities in the respondent’s health history. We observed more problematic interactional behaviors during question-answer sequences in which respondents reported worse health. Furthermore, these behaviors were more likely to occur when there were inconsistencies in the respondent’s health history, even after controlling for the respondent’s answer to the self-reported health question, cognitive ability, and sociodemographic characteristics. We also found that among respondents who reported “excellent” health, and to a lesser extent among those who reported their health was “very good,” problematic interactional behaviors were associated with health inconsistencies. Overall, we find evidence that the interactional behaviors exhibited during the question-answer sequence are associated with respondents’ health status.

Little is known about what strategies are cost-effective in increasing participation among physicians in surveys that are conducted exclusively via the web. To assess the effects of incentives and prenotification on response rates and costs, general internists ( N = 3,550) were randomly selected from the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile and assigned to experimental groups that varied in the amount of a promised incentive (none, entry into a $200 lottery, $50, or $100) and prenotification (none, prenotification letter only, or prenotification letter containing a $2 preincentive). Results indicated that the response rates were highest in the groups promised $100 and $50, respectively. While the postal prenotification letter increased response rates, the inclusion of a small token $2 preincentive had no effect on participation. Further, unlike mail surveys of physicians, the $2 preincentive was not cost-effective. Among physicians, larger promised incentives of $50 or $100 are more effective than a nominal preincentive in increasing participation in a web-only survey. Consistent with prior research, there was little evidence of nonresponse bias among the experimental groups.

The versatility, speed, and reduced costs with which web surveys can be conducted with clinicians are often offset by low response rates. Drawing on best practices and general recommendations in the literature, we provide an evidence-based overview of methods for conducting online surveys with providers. We highlight important advantages and disadvantages of conducting provider surveys online and include a review of differences in response rates between web and mail surveys of clinicians. When administered online, design-based features affect rates of survey participation and data quality. We examine features likely to have an impact including sample frames, incentives, contacts (type, timing, and content), mixed-mode approaches, and questionnaire length. We make several recommendations regarding optimal web-based designs, but more empirical research is needed, particularly with regard to identifying which combinations of incentive and contact approaches yield the highest response rates and are the most cost-effective.

From 2009 to 2010, an experiment was conducted to increase response rates among African American mothers in the Wisconsin Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Sample members were randomly assigned to groups that received a prepaid, cash incentive of $5 (n = 219); a coupon for diapers valued at $6 (n = 210); or no incentive (n = 209). Incentives were included with the questionnaire, which was mailed to respondents. We examined the effects of the incentives on several outcomes, including response rates, cost effectiveness, survey response distributions, and item nonresponse. Response rates were significantly higher for the cash group than for the coupon (42.5 vs. 32.4%, P < .05) or no incentive group (42.5 vs. 30.1%, P < .01); the coupon and no incentive groups performed similarly. While absolute costs were the highest for the cash group, the cost per completed survey was the lowest. The incentives had limited effects on response distributions for specific survey questions. Although respondents completing the survey by mail in the cash and coupon groups exhibited a trend toward being less likely to have missing data, the effect was not significant. Compared to a coupon or no incentive, a small cash incentive significantly improved response rates and was cost effective among African American respondents in Wisconsin PRAMS. Incentives had only limited effects, however, on survey response distributions, and no significant effects on item nonresponse.