M Salim Silva1, W T Smith, G Bammer. 1. National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia. Marluce.Silva@anu.edu.au
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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