IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0108441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Constantin E Uhlig
  • Berthold Seitz
  • Nicole Eter
  • Julia Promesberger
  • Holger Busse

Abstract

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 (E1 and E2) and to members of a medical association (E3), as a link placed in a special text on the municipal homepage regularly read by the administrative employees of two cities (H1 and H2), and paper-based to workers at an automobile enterprise (P1) and college (P2) and senior (P3) 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% (E1) and 97.4% (P2). Between 6.4% (P1) and 57.0% (P2) of the invited participants completely answered the questionnaires. The costs per completely answered questionnaire were $0.57–$1.41 (E1–3), $1.70 and $0.80 for H1 and H2, respectively, and $3.36–$4.21 (P1–3). 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Constantin E Uhlig & Berthold Seitz & Nicole Eter & Julia Promesberger & Holger Busse, 2014. "Efficiencies of Internet-Based Digital and Paper-Based Scientific Surveys and the Estimated Costs and Time for Different-Sized Cohorts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-11, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0108441
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0108441
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0108441&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0108441?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katarzyna Wesołowska-Górniak & Agnieszka Nerek & Lena Serafin & Bożena Czarkowska-Pączek, 2022. "The Relationship between Sociodemographic, Professional, and Incentive Factors and Self-Reported Level of Physical Activity in the Nurse Population: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Stefan Hertling & Franziska Maria Loos & Isabel Graul, 2021. "Telemedicine as a Therapeutic Option in Sports Medicine: Results of a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study among Physicians and Patients in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Grażyna Puto & Maria Jurzec & Anna Leja-Szpak & Joanna Bonior & Marta Muszalik & Agnieszka Gniadek, 2021. "Stress and Coping Strategies of Nurses Working with Patients Infected with and Not Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Virus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Jaewon Han & Sugie Lee, 2023. "Verification of Immersive Virtual Reality as a Streetscape Evaluation Method in Urban Residential Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Maksymilian Gajda & Małgorzata Kowalska & Jan E. Zejda, 2018. "Evaluation of the First Polish Web-Based Intervention Aimed at Improving Cancer Prevention (the PORINA Study)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0108441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.