Translate this page into:
Authors’ response
*For correspondence: director@nariindia.org
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
We thank the author of the letter for a critical reading of our article1. Our study was conducted to generate evidence to inform and, if needed, review policy responses particularly with regard to the use of chemoprophylaxis by healthcare workers against COVID-19. While acknowledging the shortcoming in recruiting cases and controls based on the calculated sample size, we would like to underline that the response rate in our study has been higher compared to the other studies, following a similar methodology, both in India and abroad2345. Registry-based recruitment and telephonic surveys are known to face the hurdle of non-participation. Therefore, in order to improve the response rate, we followed several strategies, such as multiple call attempts, targeted call times and training interviewers678.
While we are aware that the article by Mehra et al9, used as a reference in our publication, has been retracted, we would like to highlight the fact that our article was published in May 2020, before the retraction notice was issued on June 5, 2020. The Lancet editors published an expression of concern about the article by Mehra et al9 on June 3, 202010. Further, the topic of the now retracted study was treatment of COVID-19 cases, whereas the ambit of our study was pre-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2. The two were very different contexts.
References
- Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19. Indian J Med Res. 2020;151:459-67.
- [Google Scholar]
- Comparison of two survey methods based on response distribution of pediatricians regarding immunization for children in India: Mail versus Telephone. Int J TDH. 2016;16:1-10.
- [Google Scholar]
- Subjective reasons for non-reporting of adverse drug reactions in a sample of physicians in outpatient care. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2016;49:57-61.
- [Google Scholar]
- Doctors’ opinions on euthanasia, end of life care, and doctor-patient communication: Telephone survey in France. BMJ. 2003;327:595-6.
- [Google Scholar]
- A national survey of US internists’ experiences with ethical dilemmas and ethics consultation. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:251-8.
- [Google Scholar]
- I am not selling anything: 29 experiments in telephone introductions. Int J Public Opinion Res. 2004;16:464-73.
- [Google Scholar]
- Can we improve our methods to reduce nonresponse bias in RDD surveys? In: 2003 Joint Statistical Meetings - Section on survey research methods. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2003. p. :8.
- [Google Scholar]
- Maximising response rates in household telephone surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:71.
- [Google Scholar]
- Retraction - Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis. Lancet. 2020;395:1820.
- [Google Scholar]
- Expression of concern: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis. Lancet. 2020;395:e102.
- [Google Scholar]
