Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (26)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by COCKBURN, J
Right arrow Articles by SANSON-FISHER, R W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by COCKBURN, J
Right arrow Articles by SANSON-FISHER, R W
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 5, No. 1, 18-23
© Oxford University Press 1988

research-article

Response Bias in a Study of General Practice

J COCKBURN, E CAMPBELL, J J GORDON and R W SANSON-FISHER

Faculty of Medicine, The University of Newcastle, New South Wales. 2308, Australia. Correspondence to. R W Sanson-Fisher, Professor of Behavioural Science in Relation to Medicine. The University of New castle, N5W, 2308. Australia

Cockburn J, Campbell E, Gordon J J and Sanson-Fisher R W. Response bias in a study of general practice. Family Practice 1988, 5: 18–23

Response bias in quality of care research is an important, but largely neglected concern. Differences between health care professionals who consent to participate in research and those who do not may distort the conclusions and prevent the results being generalizable. This is particularly likely when response rates are low, as they often are in studies evaluating primary health care. The present study outlines a method for examining this important area. Fifty-six general practitioners who consented to participate in an observational study of general practice were compared with 52 doctors who declined to participate in the research. Comparisons were made of general characteristics including age, sex, practice size and postgraduate qualifications, as well as attitudes toward their role. This last analysis was deemed particularly important, as the attitudes expressed may have affected the behaviour of the doctor in the consultation, and therefore outcomes such as accurate diagnosis, compliance and satisfaction. Such outcomes are often the object of study in quality of care research. The only significant difference to emerge in the present study was that non-consenters were more strongly in favour of a medical system based on free enterprise and fee for service (t83=2.3p<0.05). No systematic differences were found on other general characteristics or attitudes relating to patient care. Response bias using the stated variables was therefore considered to be minimal. The results are discussed in terms of strategies aimed at increasing response rates in quality of care research.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
J. B. VanGeest, T. P. Johnson, and V. L. Welch
Methodologies for Improving Response Rates in Surveys of Physicians: A Systematic Review
Eval Health Prof, December 1, 2007; 30(4): 303 - 321.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
T. Coleman
Using video-recorded consultations for research in primary care: advantages and limitations
Fam. Pract., October 1, 2000; 17(5): 422 - 427.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
B. R McAvoy and E. F S Kaner
General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far?
BMJ, September 21, 1996; 313(7059): 732 - 733.
[Full Text]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.