Literature DB >> 11812810

Telephone reminders are a cost effective way to improve responses in postal health surveys.

M Salim Silva1, W T Smith, G Bammer.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a telephone reminder in increasing responses to postal surveys and to calculate the differential costs per completed questionnaire.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Australian university and rehabilitation medicine practice. PARTICIPANTS: The trial was conducted in 1999 among the 143 non-respondents to a questionnaire about work related neck and upper body disorders. The questionnaire was sent to two Australian female samples: 200 office workers (Sample A) and 92 former rehabilitation medicine patients (Sample B). A reminder letter, another copy of the questionnaire and a final letter were sent at two week intervals. Half of the non-respondents within each sample were randomly selected to receive a telephone reminder just after the second mailout of the questionnaire. All direct costs were calculated. MAIN
RESULTS: Responses were significantly higher among those who received the telephone reminder intervention (relative risk 2.54, 95% confidence intervals 1.43 to 4.52). Analysed by intention to phone, 47% of non-respondents in Sample A and 38% in Sample B returned a complete questionnaire after the intervention, compared with 21% and 10%, respectively, in the control groups. For the 112 women (combined samples) who returned completed questionnaires before randomisation, the average cost per respondent was AUD14. There was a higher total cost for the intervention groups (AUD851 versus AUD386 for controls), but the significantly higher number of additional completed responses (31 versus 12) resulted in a 15% lower marginal cost per completed questionnaire in those groups.
CONCLUSION: Telephone reminders are cost effective in improving responses to postal surveys.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11812810      PMCID: PMC1732073          DOI: 10.1136/jech.56.2.115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  5 in total

1.  Controlled trial of the effect of length, incentives, and follow-up techniques on response to a mailed questionnaire.

Authors:  S C Hoffman; A E Burke; K J Helzlsouer; G W Comstock
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Impact of a postcard versus a questionnaire as a first reminder in a postal lifestyle survey.

Authors:  H Roberts; J C Pearson; R Dengler
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Effects on response rates and costs of stamps vs business reply in a mail survey of physicians.

Authors:  N Urban; G L Anderson; A Tseng
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  A randomized trial of the impact of telephone and recorded delivery reminders on the response rate to research questionnaires.

Authors:  S S Tai; I Nazareth; A Haines; C Jowett
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1997-06

5.  Randomized trial of use of a monetary incentive and a reminder card to increase the response rate to a mailed health survey.

Authors:  T V Perneger; J F Etter; A Rougemont
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-11-01       Impact factor: 4.897

  5 in total
  7 in total

1.  A population-based prevalence study of hepatitis A, B and C virus using oral fluid in Flanders, Belgium.

Authors:  Sophie Quoilin; Veronik Hutse; Hans Vandenberghe; Françoise Claeys; Els Verhaegen; Liesbet De Cock; Frank Van Loock; Geert Top; Pierre Van Damme; Robert Vranckx; Herman Van Oyen
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-03-14       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Golf-related lower back injuries: an epidemiological survey.

Authors:  Andrew J McHardy; Henry P Pollard; Kehui Luo
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2007-03

3.  Telephone follow-up to a mail survey: when to offer an interview compared to a reminder call.

Authors:  Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Kelly R Burmeister; Ann Harris; Stefan D Holubar; Timothy J Beebe
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  The Effect of the Familiarity of a Survey Sender on Response Outcomes in a Large-Scale Survey of Emergency Medical Services Agencies.

Authors:  Morgan M Millar; Hilary A Hewes; Andrea L Genovesi; Michael Ely; Braden Green; Patricia Schmuhl; Kjelsey Polzin; Carolina Roberts Santana; Marc Minkler; Lenora M Olson
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 2.329

Review 5.  Maximising response to postal questionnaires--a systematic review of randomised trials in health research.

Authors:  Rachel A Nakash; Jane L Hutton; Ellen C Jørstad-Stein; Simon Gates; Sarah E Lamb
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-02-23       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 6.  Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Authors:  Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

Review 7.  A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies.

Authors:  Cara L Booker; Seeromanie Harding; Michaela Benzeval
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 3.295

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.