Indian Journal of Medical Research

: 2020  |  Volume : 152  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 128--129

Authors' response

Pranab Chatterjee1, Tanu Anand2, Kh Jitenkumar Singh3, Reeta Rasaily4, Ravinder Singh5, Santasabuj Das6, Harpreet Singh7, Ira Praharaj8, Raman R Gangakhedkar8, Balram Bhargava9, Samiran Panda10,  
1 Translational Global Health Policy Research Cell, New Delhi, India
2 Multidisciplinary Research Unit/Model Rural Health Research Unit, New Delhi, India
3 ICMR-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India
4 Division of Reproductive Biology, Maternal Health & Child Health, New Delhi, India
5 Division of Non-Communicable Diseases, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India
6 Division of Clinical Medicine, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera & Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
7 Informatics, Systems & Research Management Cell, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India
8 Division of Epidemiology & Communicable Diseases, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India
9 Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare; Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India
10 ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Samiran Panda
ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra

How to cite this article:
Chatterjee P, Anand T, Singh KJ, Rasaily R, Singh R, Das S, Singh H, Praharaj I, Gangakhedkar RR, Bhargava B, Panda S. Authors' response.Indian J Med Res 2020;152:128-129

How to cite this URL:
Chatterjee P, Anand T, Singh KJ, Rasaily R, Singh R, Das S, Singh H, Praharaj I, Gangakhedkar RR, Bhargava B, Panda S. Authors' response. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 16 ];152:128-129
Available from:

Full Text

We thank Kunte et al[1] for a critical reading of our article[2] and expressing their appreciation for our work on the prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in healthcare workers (HCWs). The authors[1] found our study design to be suitable and the issues we covered while exploring factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs appropriate. It also did not escape the notice of the authors of the letter[1] that we had underscored the importance of use of personal protective equipment, as a preventive strategy in conjunction with HCQ.

The lower response rate in our study, as has been pointed out, is a known limitation of a telephone-based survey method. It has been seen that while face-to-face surveys are able to cover wider grounds and attain greater representativeness, telephone surveys may need to approach a larger sample of population to compensate for non-participation. However, telephone-based surveys perform better compared to online, mail, or self-reported data collection methods[3],[4]. We tried to maximize the response rates by reaching out to non-responders by calling them over the phone two additional times, preferably at a different time than the previous call. Worth noting was that the response rates (61% in cases and 68% in controls) in our study were higher compared to the rates encountered in other studies that engaged HCWs in India (paediatricians: 57%)[5], Germany (physicians: 56%)[6], France (physicians: 59%)[7] and the USA (internists: 64%)[8].

Our study did not seek to establish the difference in clinical severity of COVID-19 between HCWs taking HCQ prophylaxis and those not taking it. Answering this question would require a differently designed investigation. We find the authors' proposition of a built-up period of HCQ administration before engaging in clinical care of COVID-19 patients interesting. However, this would need to be based on the data generated through prospective HCQ prophylaxis study. We found associations through case-control investigation, which were indicative of the prophylactic effect of HCQ, and highlighted the need for clinical trials as also suggested by Kunte et al[1].


1Kunte R, Yadav AK, Faujdar DS, Sahu R, Basannar D, Patrikar S, et al. Prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine among healthcare workers in a case-control study. Indian J Med Res 2020; 152 : 127-8.
2Chatterjee P, Anand T, Singh Kh, Rasaily R, Singh R, Das S, et al. Healthcare workers and SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19. IndianJ Med Res 2020; 151 : 459-67.
3Szolnoki G, Hoffmann D. Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys-Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research. Wine Econ Policy 2013; 2 : 57-66.
4Patnaik S, Brunskill E, Thies W. Evaluating the accuracy of data collection on mobile phones: A study of forms, SMS, and voice. In: 2009 international conference on information and communication technologies and development (ICTD). Doha, Qatar: IEEE; 2009. p. 74-84.
5Zhang RL, Thacker N, Choudhury P, Pazol K, Orenstein WA, Omer SB, et al. Comparison of two survey methods based on response distribution of pediatricians regarding immunization for children in India: Mail versus telephone. Int J Trop Dis Health 2016; 16 : 1-10.
6Gahr M, Eller J, Connemann BJ, Schönfeldt-Lecuona C. Subjective reasons for non-reporting of adverse drug reactions in a sample of physicians in outpatient care. Pharmacopsychiatry 2016; 49 : 57-61.
7Peretti-Watel P, Bendiane MK, Pegliasco H, Lapiana JM, Favre R, Galinier A, et al. Doctors' opinions on euthanasia, end of life care, and doctor-patient communication: Telephone survey in France. BMJ 2003; 327 : 595-6.
8DuVal G, Clarridge B, Gensler G, Danis M. A national survey of U.S. internists' experiences with ethical dilemmas and ethics consultation. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19 : 251-8.