ABSTRACT
ObjectivesHand signatures offer a more authentic personalisation, which carries over to a sense of trust, although are costly and time-consuming when considering large postal surveys. The objective of this study was to compare response rates when using either hand-signed or electronic-signed letters in a postal survey.Design and settingWe embedded this randomised controlled trial within a national cross-sectional postal survey of emergency physicians in Canada. The survey aimed to describe current practice patterns with respect to primary headache disorders.ParticipantsWe randomly sampled 500 emergency physicians listed in the Scott’s Canadian Medical Directory, 2019 edition.InterventionsUsing computer-generated random numbers, physicians were allocated to receiving either hand-signed (n=250) or electronic signed (n=250) letters. The initial mailout contained a US$5 Tim Hortons coffee card with the invitation letter. Four reminders were sent to non-responders every 3 weeks. The same type of signature was used for the initial invitation and subsequent reminders.OutcomeThe primary outcome was the survey response rate.ResultsAmong 500 physicians invited, 32 invitations were undeliverable. Among the remaining 468 physicians, 231 had been allocated to the hand-signed group and 237 to the electronic signed group. The response rate in the hand-signed group was 87 (37.7%) vs 97 (40.9%) in the electronic-signed group (absolute difference in proportions −3.3%, 95% CI −12.1% to 5.6%).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in physician response rate between hand-signed and e-signed cover letter and reminder letters. Electronic signatures should be used in future postal surveys among physicians to save on time and labour without impacting response rates.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Transplant rates in Ontario rose steeply in the decade prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Reasons for that increase remain unclear, but the inter-organizational arrangement of organ donation programs may have contributed. However, there is a paucity of literature investigating these inter-organizational arrangements, with a limited understanding of how communication facilitates organ donation. Understanding these arrangements may help to re-establish rising organ donation rates post-pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To describe interprofessional interactions of Organ and Tissue Donation Coordinators (OTDCs) during organ donation cases, within organ donation programs in Ontario, from an organizational perspective (describing structure, context, process). METHODS: Mixed-method social network analysis (SNA) approach analyzing 14 organ donation cases just before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Structure: Social network graphs depict the joint work performed by hospital staff and OTDCs, with a great part of the communication being processed through the OTDC. CONTEXT: Network density ranged from 0.05 to 0.24 across cases, and health care professionals perceived an atmosphere of shared vision and trust among team members. PROCESS: Most networks had a degree centralization <0.50 suggesting a decentralized information flow, and participants perceived decisions being jointly made. The characteristic path length of cases ranged from 1.6 to 3.2, suggesting potential for rapid information diffusion. Overall, data reinforced the OTDC role of intermediator within the communication process, and hospital staff perceived OTDCs as central players. Hospital staff and OTDCs reported frustration with some aspects of the flow of information during the organ allocation processes. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study provide a network map of communications within organ donation cases and reinforce the importance of the OTDC role. Opportunities for quality improvement within these processes are identified.