Which Outreach Modes Improve Response Rates to Physician Surveys? Lessons from an Experiment at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Physicians are a notoriously difficult group to survey due to a low propensity to respond. We investigate the relative effectiveness of reminder phone calls, pre-notification postcards, mailed paper surveys, and $1 upfront incentives for boosting survey response rate by embedding a randomized experiment into a mixed-mode operational survey at the American Board of Internal Medicine in 2019. Expected response rates and average marginal effects for each follow-up method were computed from a logistic regression model. The control group which only received email reminders achieved a response rate of 18.2%, 95% CI: (15.0%, 21.9%). The intervention group which included reminder emails, pre-notification postcards, and mailed paper surveys with $1 incentives achieved a response rate of 43.1%, 95% CI: (38.8%, 47.5%). Mailed paper surveys yielded the largest percentage point increase in response rate of 11.2%, 95% CI: (7.3%, 15.2%), while $1 upfront monetary incentives and phone call reminders increased survey response rate by 5.9%, 95% CI: (1.6%, 10.2%) and 5.5%, 95% CI: (2.6%, 8.3%) respectively. Pre-notification postcards are associated with a 2.0%, 95% CI: (-1.7%, 5.6%) increase in survey response rate. Cost-effectiveness for each method is discussed. This research supports optimal decision making for researchers when planning a physician survey study.

Remind Me Again: Physician Response to Web Surveys: The Effect of Email Reminders Across 11 Opinion Survey Efforts at the American Board of Internal Medicine from 2017 to 2019.

For survey researchers, physicians in the United States are a difficult-to-reach subgroup. The purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of email reminders on web-based survey response rates targeting physicians. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 11 American Board of Internal Medicine surveys from 2017 to 2019. We compute aggregate response rates for the periods between weekly email contacts across the 11 surveys, while controlling for survey time to complete, physician age, gender, region, board certification status, and initial exam performance. The overall predicted response rate after six weekly email contacts was 23.7%, 95% CI: (17.1%, 33.0%). Across the 11 surveys, we found response rate for the first period to be 8.9%, 95% CI: (6.5%, 12.2%). We observed a 50% decrease in response from the first to the second period, which had a 4.4%, 95% CI: (3.2%, 6.2%), response rate. The third and fourth response periods yielded similar response rates of 3.0%, 95% CI: (2.3%, 3.9%) and 3.3%, 95%CI: (2.4%, 4.6%), respectively. The fifth and sixth response periods yielded similar response rates of 2.2%, 95%CI: (1.5%, 3.3%) and 1.9%, 95% CI: (1.3%, 2.7%), respectively. The results were further stratified into different levels of participant survey interest, and are helpful for cost and sample size considerations when designing a physician survey.

Changes in Stress and Workplace Shortages Reported by U.S. Critical Care Physicians Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Eleven months into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the country faces accelerating rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Little is known about the experiences of critical care physicians caring for the sickest coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Our goal is to understand how high stress levels and shortages faced by these physicians during Spring 2020 have evolved. DESIGN: We surveyed (October 23, 2020 to November 16, 2020) U.S. critical care physicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients who participated in a National survey earlier in the pandemic (April 23, 2020 to May 3, 2020) regarding their stress and shortages they faced. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTION: Irrelevant. MEASUREMENT: Physician emotional distress/physical exhaustion: low (not at all/not much), moderate, or high (a lot/extreme). Shortage indicators: insufficient ICU-trained staff and shortages in medication, equipment, or personal protective equipment requiring protocol changes. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2,375 U.S. critical care attending physicians who responded to the initial survey, we received responses from 1,356 (57.1% response rate), 97% of whom (1,278) recently treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Two thirds of physicians (67.6% [864]) reported moderate or high levels of emotional distress in the Spring versus 50.7% (763) in the Fall. Reports of staffing shortages persisted with 46.5% of Fall respondents (594) reporting a staff shortage versus 48.3% (617) in the Spring. Meaningful shortages of medication and equipment reported in the Spring were largely alleviated. Although personal protective equipment shortages declined by half, they remained substantial. CONCLUSIONS: Stress, staffing, and, to a lesser degree, personal protective equipment shortages faced by U.S. critical care physicians remain high. Stress levels were higher among women. Considering the persistence of these findings, rising levels of infection nationally raise concerns about the capacity of the U.S. critical care system to meet ongoing and future demands.

Opportunities for Maintenance of Certification to Better Reflect Scope of Practice Among Medical Oncologists.

PURPOSE: Critics argue that the American Board of Internal Medicine's medical oncology Maintenance of Certification examination requires medical oncologists with a narrow scope of practice to spend time studying material that is no longer relevant to their practice. However, no data are available describing the scope of practice for medical oncologists. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we examined the scope of practice for 9,985 medical oncologists who saw 8.6 million oncology conditions in 2016, each of which was assigned to 1 of 23 different condition groups. Scope of practice was then measured as the percentage of oncology conditions within each of the 23 groups. We grouped physicians with similar scopes of practice by applying K-means clustering to the percentage of conditions seen. The scope of practice for each physician cluster was determined from the cancers that encompassed the majority of average oncology conditions seen among physicians composing the cluster. RESULTS: We found 20 distinct scope-of-practice clusters. The largest (n = 6,479 [65.5%]) had a general oncology scope of practice. The remaining physicians focused on a narrow scope of cancers, including 22.6% focused on ≥ 1 solid tumors and 11.9% focused on hematologic malignancies. The largest focused cluster accounted for 7.7% of physicians focused on breast cancer. CONCLUSION: A single American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification assessment in medical oncology is most appropriate for approximately 65% of certified medical oncologists' practices. However, the addition of assessments focused on breast cancer and hematologic malignancies could increase this figure to upwards of 85% of certified medical oncologists.

Role of Critical Care Medicine Training in the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit: Survey Responses From Dual Certified Critical Care Cardiologists.

Background Cardiovascular intensive care units ( CICUs ) have evolved from coronary care wards into distinct units for critically ill patients with primary cardiac diseases, often suffering from illnesses that cross multiple disciplines. Mounting evidence has demonstrated improved survival with the incorporation of dedicated CICU providers with expertise in critical care medicine ( CCM ). This is the first study to systematically survey dual certified physicians in order to assess the relevance of CCM training to contemporary CICU care. Methods and Results Utilizing American Board of Internal Medicine data through 2014, 397 eligible physicians had obtained initial certification in both cardiovascular disease and CCM . A survey to delineate the role of critical care training in the CICU was provided to these physicians. Among those surveyed, 120 physicians (30%) responded. Dual certified physicians reported frequent use of their CCM skills in the CICU , highlighting ventilator management, multiorgan dysfunction management, end-of-life care, and airway management. The majority (85%) cited these skills as the reason CCM training should be prioritized by future CICU providers. Few (17%) agreed that general cardiology fellowship alone is currently sufficient to care for patients in the modern CICU . Furthermore, there was a consensus that there is an unmet need for cardiologists trained in CCM (70%) and that CICU s should adopt a level system similar to trauma centers (61%). Conclusions Citing specific skills acquired during CCM training, dual certified critical care cardiologists reported that their additional critical care experience was necessary in their practice to effectively deliver care in the modern CICU .

The Association of Changing Practice Settings on Maintenance of Certification Exam Outcomes: A Comparative Study of General Internists Over Time.

PURPOSE: To investigate how changing to or from solo practice settings relates to maintenance of certification (MOC) exam performance. METHOD: The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of exam pass/fail outcomes for 7,112 physicians who successfully completed their initial MOC cycle from 2000 to 2004. Initial physician MOC practice characteristics records, demographic information, and exam performance were linked with exam pass/fail outcomes from their second MOC cycle from 2006 to 2014 (5,215 physicians after attrition). Exam pass/fail outcomes for physicians' second MOC cycle were compared among four groups: those who remained in group practice across both MOC cycles, those who changed from group to solo practice, those who changed from solo to group practice, and those who remained in solo practice across both MOC cycles. RESULTS: Physicians who changed from solo to group practice performed significantly better than those who remained in solo practice (odds ratio [OR] = 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11, 2.51; P = .027). Conversely, physicians changing from group to solo practice performed significantly worse than physicians staying in group practice (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.80; P = .002). Meanwhile, physicians who changed from solo to group practice performed similarly to physicians remaining in group practice (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in solo/group practice status were associated with second-cycle MOC exam performance. This study provides evidence that the context in which a physician practices may have an impact on their MOC exam performance.