Cargando…

Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts

AIMS: To evaluate the relative efficiencies of five Internet-based digital and three paper-based scientific surveys and to estimate the costs for different-sized cohorts. METHODS: Invitations to participate in a survey were distributed via e-mail to employees of two university hospitals (E(1) and E(...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Uhlig, Constantin E., Seitz, Berthold, Eter, Nicole, Promesberger, Julia, Busse, Holger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196760/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25313672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108441
_version_ 1782339523412230144
author Uhlig, Constantin E.
Seitz, Berthold
Eter, Nicole
Promesberger, Julia
Busse, Holger
author_facet Uhlig, Constantin E.
Seitz, Berthold
Eter, Nicole
Promesberger, Julia
Busse, Holger
author_sort Uhlig, Constantin E.
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To evaluate the relative efficiencies of five Internet-based digital and three paper-based scientific surveys and to estimate the costs for different-sized cohorts. METHODS: Invitations to participate in a survey were distributed via e-mail to employees of two university hospitals (E(1) and E(2)) and to members of a medical association (E(3)), as a link placed in a special text on the municipal homepage regularly read by the administrative employees of two cities (H(1) and H(2)), and paper-based to workers at an automobile enterprise (P(1)) and college (P(2)) and senior (P(3)) students. The main parameters analyzed included the numbers of invited and actual participants, and the time and cost to complete the survey. Statistical analysis was descriptive, except for the Kruskal-Wallis-H-test, which was used to compare the three recruitment methods. Cost efficiencies were compared and extrapolated to different-sized cohorts. RESULTS: The ratios of completely answered questionnaires to distributed questionnaires were between 81.5% (E(1)) and 97.4% (P(2)). Between 6.4% (P(1)) and 57.0% (P(2)) of the invited participants completely answered the questionnaires. The costs per completely answered questionnaire were $0.57–$1.41 (E(1–3)), $1.70 and $0.80 for H(1) and H(2), respectively, and $3.36–$4.21 (P(1–3)). Based on our results, electronic surveys with 10, 20, 30, or 42 questions would be estimated to be most cost (and time) efficient if more than 101.6–225.9 (128.2–391.7), 139.8–229.2 (93.8–193.6), 165.8–230.6 (68.7–115.7), or 188.2–231.5 (44.4–72.7) participants were required, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study efficiency depended on the technical modalities of the survey methods and engagement of the participants. Depending on our study design, our results suggest that in similar projects that will certainly have more than two to three hundred required participants, the most efficient way of conducting a questionnaire-based survey is likely via the Internet with a digital questionnaire, specifically via a centralized e-mail.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4196760
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41967602014-10-16 Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts Uhlig, Constantin E. Seitz, Berthold Eter, Nicole Promesberger, Julia Busse, Holger PLoS One Research Article AIMS: To evaluate the relative efficiencies of five Internet-based digital and three paper-based scientific surveys and to estimate the costs for different-sized cohorts. METHODS: Invitations to participate in a survey were distributed via e-mail to employees of two university hospitals (E(1) and E(2)) and to members of a medical association (E(3)), as a link placed in a special text on the municipal homepage regularly read by the administrative employees of two cities (H(1) and H(2)), and paper-based to workers at an automobile enterprise (P(1)) and college (P(2)) and senior (P(3)) students. The main parameters analyzed included the numbers of invited and actual participants, and the time and cost to complete the survey. Statistical analysis was descriptive, except for the Kruskal-Wallis-H-test, which was used to compare the three recruitment methods. Cost efficiencies were compared and extrapolated to different-sized cohorts. RESULTS: The ratios of completely answered questionnaires to distributed questionnaires were between 81.5% (E(1)) and 97.4% (P(2)). Between 6.4% (P(1)) and 57.0% (P(2)) of the invited participants completely answered the questionnaires. The costs per completely answered questionnaire were $0.57–$1.41 (E(1–3)), $1.70 and $0.80 for H(1) and H(2), respectively, and $3.36–$4.21 (P(1–3)). Based on our results, electronic surveys with 10, 20, 30, or 42 questions would be estimated to be most cost (and time) efficient if more than 101.6–225.9 (128.2–391.7), 139.8–229.2 (93.8–193.6), 165.8–230.6 (68.7–115.7), or 188.2–231.5 (44.4–72.7) participants were required, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study efficiency depended on the technical modalities of the survey methods and engagement of the participants. Depending on our study design, our results suggest that in similar projects that will certainly have more than two to three hundred required participants, the most efficient way of conducting a questionnaire-based survey is likely via the Internet with a digital questionnaire, specifically via a centralized e-mail. Public Library of Science 2014-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4196760/ /pubmed/25313672 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108441 Text en © 2014 Uhlig et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Uhlig, Constantin E.
Seitz, Berthold
Eter, Nicole
Promesberger, Julia
Busse, Holger
Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts
title Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts
title_full Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts
title_fullStr Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts
title_full_unstemmed Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts
title_short Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts
title_sort efficiencies of internet-based digital and paper-based scientific surveys and the estimated costs and time for different-sized cohorts
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196760/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25313672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108441
work_keys_str_mv AT uhligconstantine efficienciesofinternetbaseddigitalandpaperbasedscientificsurveysandtheestimatedcostsandtimefordifferentsizedcohorts
AT seitzberthold efficienciesofinternetbaseddigitalandpaperbasedscientificsurveysandtheestimatedcostsandtimefordifferentsizedcohorts
AT eternicole efficienciesofinternetbaseddigitalandpaperbasedscientificsurveysandtheestimatedcostsandtimefordifferentsizedcohorts
AT promesbergerjulia efficienciesofinternetbaseddigitalandpaperbasedscientificsurveysandtheestimatedcostsandtimefordifferentsizedcohorts
AT busseholger efficienciesofinternetbaseddigitalandpaperbasedscientificsurveysandtheestimatedcostsandtimefordifferentsizedcohorts