Member survey results

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 52 , No. 5 , June 2010 , Pages 244 Letters

I take exception to the self-congratulatory perspective taken by Dr Brian Brodie over the results of the membership survey, a second after only 2 years.


I take exception to the self-congratulatory perspective taken by Dr Brian Brodie over the results of the membership survey, a second after only 2 years. 

This latest is presented in graphic form by Ipsos Reid as well as Dr Brodie’s commentary [BCMJ 2010;52:120] in the April issue. Dr Brodie writes, under the title “Numbers speak volumes” (indeed), “I am extremely pleased to say we’re doing pretty darn well.” “The great thing about surveys is they offer meaningful [my emphasis] two-way communication.” 

I venture the results of the survey, which to me speak volumes in another way, are abysmal, and reflect on the truly sad state we are all in. 

A response rate of 14% can hardly be representative, and conclusions from them are statistical garbage, and we know “garb­age in, garbage out.” 

Liberally sprinkled through the results are comments of “significance” with shifts of 5% to 8% (!) over previous survey (of this tiny sample). 

In the section for insurance programs (my own sore point), 31% are reported unhappy that “other plans have better coverage”—a whopping 1:3 (of this small sample) nicely ignored with 22% not responding, likely not bothering to respond in disgust. 

Ominously 21% expect to retire in less than 5 years, and another 29% in 11 to 15 years, and 25% feel members are not involved in decisions! I can go on, but will cease after expressing my frustrations, and encourage other members to peruse the survey analysis with a skeptical eye. 

I feel wasting our funds once again on surveys, hoping to be congratulatory, after only 2 years is out of line as expressed before. —John de Couto, MD Burnaby

John de Couto, MD,. Member survey results. BCMJ, Vol. 52, No. 5, June, 2010, Page(s) 244 - Letters.



Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.


For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply