Collecting Experiences of Cost-Containment Policies in Healthcare: The Practice and Outcomes of a Postal Survey of Physicians in Portugal
Abstract
We conducted a survey of physicians regarding their experience of how cost-containment policies affected the health system in Portugal, particularly in terms of the quality of and access to health care. We explain the study design, especially the pertinence of the research goals and the reason for choosing a postal survey of a non-representative sample of physicians. We also highlight arguments on the appropriateness of this sampling technique in academic research. We detail the research practicalities, in particular the official involvement of the Portuguese Medical Association in the research process. This leads us to reflect on the place of third parties on research teams and the need to ensure the scientific independence of studies. We describe how the postal survey went and the measures taken to leverage its success. We conclude with reflection on the practical lessons learned, which includes the criteria to be used when choosing research methods, defining essential and non-essential choices to be made during the research, and reflecting on the nature of the data produced, especially with regard to previously established facts.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The incidence of extramural collaboration in academic research activities is increasing as a result of various factors. These
factors include policy measures aimed at fostering partnership and networking among the various components of the research
system, policies which are in turn justified by the idea that knowledge sharing could increase the effectiveness of the system.
Over the last two decades, the scientific community has also stepped up activities to assess the actual impact of collaboration
intensity on the performance of research systems. This study draws on a number of empirical analyses, with the intention of
measuring the effects of extramural collaboration on research performance and, indirectly, verifying the legitimacy of policies
that support this type of collaboration. The analysis focuses on the Italian academic research system. The aim of the work
is to assess the level of correlation, at institutional level, between scientific productivity and collaboration intensity
as a whole, both internationally and with private organizations. This will be carried out using a bibliometric type of approach,
which equates collaboration with the co-authorship of scientific publications.
How to achieve survey representativeness is a controversially debated issue in the field of survey methodology. Common questions include whether probability-based samples produce more representative data than nonprobability samples, whether the response rate determines the overall degree of survey representativeness, and which survey modes are effective in generating highly representative data. This meta-analysis contributes to this debate by synthesizing and analyzing the literature on two common measures of survey representativeness (R-Indicators and descriptive benchmark comparisons). Our findings indicate that probability-based samples (compared to nonprobability samples), mixed-mode surveys (compared to single-mode surveys), and other-than-Web modes (compared to Web surveys) are more representative, respectively. In addition, we find that there is a positive association between representativeness and the response rate. Furthermore, we identify significant gaps in the research literature that we hope might encourage further research in this area.
In this paper I review three key technology-related trends: 1) big data, 2) non-probability samples, and 3) mobile data collection. I focus on the implications of these trends for survey research and the research profession. With regard to big data, I review a number of concerns that need to be addressed, and argue for a balanced and careful evaluation of the role that big data can play in the future. I argue that these developments are unlikely to replace transitional survey data collection, but will supplement surveys and expand the range of research methods. I also argue for the need for the survey research profession to adapt to changing circumstances. European Survey Research Association.
This paper explores recent trends in the size of scientific teams and in institutional collaborations. The data derive from 2.4 million scientific papers written in 110 top U.S. research universities over the period 1981–1999. The top 110 account for a large share of published basic research conducted in the U.S. during this time.We measure team size by the number of authors on a scientific paper. Using this measure we find that team size increases by 50% over the 19-year period. We supplement team size with measures of domestic and foreign institutional collaborations, which capture the geographic dispersion of team workers. The time series evidence suggests that the trend towards more geographically dispersed scientific teams accelerates beginning with papers published at the start of the 1990s. This acceleration suggests a sharp decline in the cost of collaboration. Our hypothesis is that the decline is due to the deployment of the National Science Foundation's NSFNET and its connection to networks in Europe and Japan after 1987.Using a panel of top university departments we also find that private universities and departments whose scientists have earned prestigious awards participate in larger teams, as do departments that have larger amounts of federal funding. Placement of former graduate students is a key determinant of institutional collaborations, especially collaborations with firms and with foreign scientific institutions. Finally, the evidence suggests that scientific output and influence increase with team size and that influence rises along with institutional collaborations. Since increasing team size implies an increase in the division of labor, these results suggest that scientific productivity increases with the scientific division of labor.
Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials
Patten, M. L., & Newhart, M. (Eds.). (2017). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials.
New York, NY: Routledge.
SAGE
2020 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
SAGE Research Methods Cases: