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 *

92 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7808085)

  • 1. [The participation of physicians in mail surveys].
    Figueiras A; Montes A; Gestal JJ
    Med Clin (Barc); 1994 Nov; 103(18):719. PubMed ID: 7808085
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Telephone vs. Web-based prescreening predicts early but not overall physician response to a mailed survey.
    Bonuedie H; Kim E; Long J; Ryskina K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 80():134-135. PubMed ID: 27498375
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone, mail, and in-person treatments in contingent valuation surveys.
    Maguire KB
    J Environ Manage; 2009 Aug; 90(11):3528-33. PubMed ID: 19647362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [It's possible to increase the response rate to postal questionnaires].
    Eaker S
    Lakartidningen; 2002 Oct; 99(44):4380. PubMed ID: 12469586
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Maximising response to postal surveys of adult dental health.
    McCloskey MI
    Community Dent Health; 1995 Dec; 12(4):244. PubMed ID: 8536091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. [Questionnaires--how to reach high response rates?].
    Zwisler JE; Jarbøl DE; Lous J
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2004 Feb; 166(7):575-8. PubMed ID: 15005038
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Patient satisfaction or acquiescence? Comparing mail and telephone survey results.
    Hall MF
    J Health Care Mark; 1995; 15(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 10142388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. No increase in response rate by adding a web response option to a postal population survey: a randomized trial.
    Brøgger J; Nystad W; Cappelen I; Bakke P
    J Med Internet Res; 2007 Dec; 9(5):e40. PubMed ID: 18174120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Increasing return rates of a mail survey to exercise professionals using a modest monetary incentive.
    Hare S; Price JH; Flynn MG; King KA
    Percept Mot Skills; 1998 Feb; 86(1):217-8. PubMed ID: 9530736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Electronic mail was not better than postal mail for surveying residents and faculty.
    Akl EA; Maroun N; Klocke RA; Montori V; Schünemann HJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Apr; 58(4):425-9. PubMed ID: 15862729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Comparison of Web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance use: evidence for minimal mode effects.
    McCabe SE; Couper MP; Cranford JA; Boyd CJ
    Addict Behav; 2006 Jan; 31(1):162-8. PubMed ID: 15916862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Response rate, speed, and completeness: a comparison of Internet-based and mail surveys.
    Truell AD; Bartlett JE; Alexander MW
    Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput; 2002 Feb; 34(1):46-9. PubMed ID: 12060989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys: e-mail versus standard mail versus telephone.
    Harewood GC; Yacavone RF; Locke GR; Wiersema MJ
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2001 Dec; 96(12):3312-7. PubMed ID: 11774942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Estimating response to follow-ups in mail surveys.
    Sudman S
    Public Opin Q; 1982; 46(4):582-4. PubMed ID: 10278173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An experiment of mailing physician surveys on two different issues in joint or separate mail.
    Sauerland S; Neugebauer EA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2002 Oct; 55(10):1046-8. PubMed ID: 12464382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices.
    Hepner KA; Brown JA; Hays RD
    Eval Health Prof; 2005 Dec; 28(4):377-89. PubMed ID: 16272420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys.
    Seguin R; Godwin M; MacDonald S; McCall M
    Can Fam Physician; 2004 Mar; 50():414-9. PubMed ID: 15318679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.