Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.2196/30265 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.2196/30265 34156965!8360334!34156965     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 231.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 265.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 265.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 265.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 265.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 265.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       JMIR+Cancer 2021 ; 7 (3): e30265 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34156965|t=2021. Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study |pdf=|usr=}}{{34156965}} gab.com Text Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study JO: JMIR Cancer http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34156965 #FOAvip 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 surveys are often lower compared with those of paper surveys. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study 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 2750 patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center in the prior 5 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 prenotifications (ie, postcard, letter) or incentives (ie, 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 was used to evaluate 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, which 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 the response rate from 5.4% to 16.7%, especially among racial (3.0% to 12.2%) and ethnic (6.4% to 21.0%) minorities, as well as among patients with low socioeconomic status (3.1% to 14.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to promote effective response rates include prenotification 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. Twit Text FOAVip Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study ????JMIR Cancer http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34156965 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34156965 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34156965}}</ref> Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study #MMPMID34156965 Hathaway CA; Chavez MN; Kadono M; Ketcher D; Rollison DE; Siegel EM; Peoples AR; Ulrich CM; Penedo FJ; Tworoger SS; Gonzalez BD JMIR Cancer 2021[Aug]; 7 (3): e30265 PMID34156965show ga 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 surveys are often lower compared with those of paper surveys. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study 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 2750 patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center in the prior 5 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 prenotifications (ie, postcard, letter) or incentives (ie, 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 was used to evaluate 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, which 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 the response rate from 5.4% to 16.7%, especially among racial (3.0% to 12.2%) and ethnic (6.4% to 21.0%) minorities, as well as among patients with low socioeconomic status (3.1% to 14.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to promote effective response rates include prenotification 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. äImproving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patient(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing