These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7490595)

  • 1. Timing payments to subjects of mail surveys: cost-effectiveness and bias.
    Schweitzer M; Asch DA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1995 Nov; 48(11):1325-9. PubMed ID: 7490595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluating telephone follow-up of a mail survey of community pharmacies.
    Westrick SC; Mount JK
    Res Social Adm Pharm; 2007 Jun; 3(2):160-82. PubMed ID: 17561218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey.
    McHorney CA; Kosinski M; Ware JE
    Med Care; 1994 Jun; 32(6):551-67. PubMed ID: 8189774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Increasing response rates for mailed surveys of Medicaid clients and other low-income populations.
    Gibson PJ; Koepsell TD; Diehr P; Hale C
    Am J Epidemiol; 1999 Jun; 149(11):1057-62. PubMed ID: 10355382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of different monetary incentives on the return rate of a national mail survey of physicians.
    VanGeest JB; Wynia MK; Cummins DS; Wilson IB
    Med Care; 2001 Feb; 39(2):197-201. PubMed ID: 11176557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects on response rates and costs of stamps vs business reply in a mail survey of physicians.
    Urban N; Anderson GL; Tseng A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1993 May; 46(5):455-9. PubMed ID: 8501471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The impact of having parents report about both their own and their children's experiences with health insurance plans.
    Shaul JA; Fowler FJ; Zaslavsky AM; Homer CJ; Gallagher PM; Cleary PD
    Med Care; 1999 Mar; 37(3 Suppl):MS59-68. PubMed ID: 10098560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Randomized trial of 5 dollars versus 10 dollars monetary incentives, envelope size, and candy to increase physician response rates to mailed questionnaires.
    Halpern SD; Ubel PA; Berlin JA; Asch DA
    Med Care; 2002 Sep; 40(9):834-9. PubMed ID: 12218773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial.
    Griffin JM; Simon AB; Hulbert E; Stevenson J; Grill JP; Noorbaloochi S; Partin MR
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 May; 11():81. PubMed ID: 21615955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. User-experience surveys with maternity services: a randomized comparison of two data collection models.
    Bjertnaes OA; Iversen HH
    Int J Qual Health Care; 2012 Aug; 24(4):433-8. PubMed ID: 22687704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians.
    Beebe TJ; Locke GR; Barnes SA; Davern ME; Anderson KJ
    Health Serv Res; 2007 Jun; 42(3 Pt 1):1219-34. PubMed ID: 17489911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Postal surveys versus electronic mail surveys. The tortoise and the hare revisited.
    Mavis BE; Brocato JJ
    Eval Health Prof; 1998 Sep; 21(3):395-408. PubMed ID: 10350958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Do postage stamps versus pre-paid envelopes increase responses to patient mail surveys? A randomised controlled trial.
    Lavelle K; Todd C; Campbell M
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2008 May; 8():113. PubMed ID: 18507819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Response rates to surveys with self-addressed, stamped envelopes versus a self-addressed label.
    Groves BW; Olsson RH
    Psychol Rep; 2000 Jun; 86(3 Pt 2):1226-8. PubMed ID: 10932585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A randomized trial of the impact of certified mail on response rate to a physician survey, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Del Valle ML; Morgenstern H; Rogstad TL; Albright C; Vickrey BG
    Eval Health Prof; 1997 Dec; 20(4):389-406. PubMed ID: 10183331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effectiveness of various mailing strategies among nonrespondents in a prospective cohort study.
    Rimm EB; Stampfer MJ; Colditz GA; Giovannucci E; Willett WC
    Am J Epidemiol; 1990 Jun; 131(6):1068-71. PubMed ID: 2343859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians.
    McFarlane E; Olmsted MG; Murphy J; Hill CA
    Eval Health Prof; 2007 Jun; 30(2):170-85. PubMed ID: 17476029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.
    Asch DA; Jedrziewski MK; Christakis NA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Oct; 50(10):1129-36. PubMed ID: 9368521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cost-effectiveness of a lottery for increasing physicians' responses to a mail survey.
    Baron G; De Wals P; Milord F
    Eval Health Prof; 2001 Mar; 24(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 11233584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Testing the Impact of Mixed-Mode Designs (Mail and Web) and Multiple Contact Attempts within Mode (Mail or Web) on Clinician Survey Response.
    Beebe TJ; Jacobson RM; Jenkins SM; Lackore KA; Rutten LJF
    Health Serv Res; 2018 Aug; 53 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):3070-3083. PubMed ID: 29355920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.