Survey response rates in health sciences education research: A 10-year meta-analysis.

Growth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta-analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011-2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta-analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9-69.0) across 360 studies (k), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p ≥ 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies.

A New Tool to Tackle the Opioid Epidemic: Description, Utility, and Results from the Maine Diversion Alert Program.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The opioid epidemic continues to impact the United States, and new strategies are needed to combat this epidemic. The objective of this study was to analyze 2015 drug arrest data from Maine's Diversion Alert (DA) program (diversionalert.org), compare arrest data between the first quarters of 2015 and 2016, and provide an analysis of the sex differences in the arrests as well as information about DA use. STUDY DESIGN: This was a population-based descriptive study using data from the Maine DA program. The study population consisted of persons arrested for prescription, nonprescription, or illicit drugs. DATA SOURCE: DA database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The DA program addresses Maine's prescription drug abuse epidemic with innovative resources that provide access to drug arrest data for health care providers to identify and respond to patients at risk for overdose, those engaged in illegal prescription drug distribution, and those who need treatment. Drug arrest data from 2015 (2723 arrests) and the first quarter of 2016 (788 arrests) were compared and analyzed. The drugs implicated in the arrests were organized by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) schedule category and whether they were pharmaceuticals (synthesized and distributed by a pharmaceutical company) or nonpharmaceuticals (grown or synthesized in clandestine laboratories). Most arrests were for possession (64.5%) followed by trafficking (23.8%). Heroin was listed in more than three-quarters (76.4%) of the Schedule I arrests, followed by marijuana (11.7%) and "bath salts" (6.3%). Cocaine and crack cocaine were implicated in almost half (46.7%) of the Schedule II arrests, followed by oxycodone (21.0%) and methamphetamine/amphetamine (15.8%). Buprenorphine was responsible for almost all (96.7%) of the Schedule III arrests. The benzodiazepines alprazolam (34.3%), clonazepam (33.8%), diazepam (11.9%), and lorazepam (8.5%) were listed in the preponderance of the Schedule IV arrests. Arrests increased in 2016 by 49.2% for heroin (p<0.01) and 170.0% for methamphetamine (p≤0.0005) relative to 2015. Arrests for trafficking increased by 42.9% (p<0.05). Males outnumbered females 2:1 in DA. Schedule IV agents accounted for only 6.8% of arrests for males versus 11.5% for females (p≤0.0001). Conversely, Schedule I agents were implicated in 33.0% of arrests for males versus only 27.3% for females (p<0.005). CONCLUSION: DA is an important tool for providing timely information for health care providers regarding individuals with a history of past misuse of psychotherapeutic agents, particularly opioids and stimulants.