Literature DB >> 14693664

Response rates to a questionnaire 26 years after baseline examination with minimal interim participant contact and baseline differences between respondents and nonrespondents.

Amber Pirzada1, Lijing L Yan, Daniel B Garside, Linda Schiffer, Alan R Dyer, Martha L Daviglus.   

Abstract

Research on response rates to surveys mailed to study participants decades after baseline examination, with minimal interim contact, is limited. This paper documents response rates to a 26-year follow-up survey of surviving participants from a large cohort in Illinois and compares baseline characteristics of nonrespondents and respondents. Mortality follow-up of the Chicago Heart Association Detection Project in Industry 1967-1973 cohort involved minimal or no participant contact since baseline. In 1996, a 26-year follow-up questionnaire was mailed to all surviving participants aged 65 years or older. Current addresses were obtained from the Health Care Financing Administration for 96.5 percent of 12,409 participants in our analyses. Total response rates were 59.8 percent and, for participants for whom Health Care Financing Administration addresses were available, 60.8 percent. A higher response rate was obtained for younger recipients, men, Whites, more-educated persons, nonsmokers, and those with a better cardiovascular risk profile at baseline. A graded negative relation was found between number of cardiovascular risk factors at baseline and response rates obtained in 1996. Use of Health Care Financing Administration records as an additional follow-up method and factors that influence response rates are discussed. In conclusion, long-term follow-up of older surviving participants is feasible if current addresses can be obtained from standardized sources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14693664     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  18 in total

1.  Research on social determinants and health: what sorts of data do we need?

Authors:  Siegfried Geyer
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.380

2.  Predictors of follow-up and assessment of selection bias from dropouts using inverse probability weighting in a cohort of university graduates.

Authors:  Alvaro Alonso; María Seguí-Gómez; Jokin de Irala; Almudena Sánchez-Villegas; Juan José Beunza; Miguel Angel Martínez-Gonzalez
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Strategies for successful retention of Alaska Native and American Indian study participants.

Authors:  Diana Redwood; Jessica Leston; Elvin Asay; Elizabeth Ferucci; Ruth Etzel; Anne P Lanier
Journal:  J Prim Prev       Date:  2011-02

4.  Repeated attempts using different strategies are important for timely contact with study participants.

Authors:  Kuan-Fu Chen; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Faisal Siddiqi; Victor D Dinglas; Kristin A Sepulveda; Eddy Fan; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Optimal Levels of All Major Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Younger Age and Functional Disability in Older Age: The Chicago Heart Association Detection Project in Industry 32-Year Follow-Up Health Survey.

Authors:  Thanh-Huyen T Vu; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Kiang Liu; Jeremiah Stamler; Daniel B Garside; Martha L Daviglus
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-07-05

6.  Comparison of participants and non-participants to the ORISCAV-LUX population-based study on cardiovascular risk factors in Luxembourg.

Authors:  Ala'a Alkerwi; Nicolas Sauvageot; Sophie Couffignal; Adelin Albert; Marie-Lise Lair; Michèle Guillaume
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Promoting regular mammography screening I. A systematic assessment of validity in a randomized trial.

Authors:  Deborah J del Junco; Sally W Vernon; Sharon P Coan; Jasmin A Tiro; Lori A Bastian; Lara S Savas; Catherine A Perz; David R Lairson; Wen Chan; Cynthia Warrick; Amy McQueen; William Rakowski
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Chicago Healthy Aging Study: objectives and design.

Authors:  Amber Pirzada; Kathryn Reid; Daniel Kim; Daniel B Garside; Brandon Lu; Thanh-Huyen T Vu; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Phyllis Zee; Kiang Liu; Jeremiah Stamler; Martha L Daviglus
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-05-12       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Detecting PTSD in a traumatically injured population: The diagnostic utility of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.

Authors:  Timothy J Geier; Joshua C Hunt; Lindsay D Nelson; Karen J Brasel; Terri A deRoon-Cassini
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2018-12-30       Impact factor: 6.505

10.  Determinants of non- response to a second assessment of lifestyle factors and body weight in the EPIC-PANACEA study.

Authors:  Anne M May; Lotte E Adema; Dora Romaguera; Anne-Claire Vergnaud; Antonio Agudo; Ulf Ekelund; Annika Steffen; Philippos Orfanos; Nadia Slimani; Sabina Rinaldi; Traci Mouw; Sabine Rohrmann; Silke Hermann; Heiner Boeing; Manuela M Bergmann; Marianne Uhre Jakobsen; Kim Overvad; Nicholas J Wareham; Carlos Gonzalez; Anne Tjonneland; Jytte Halkjaer; Timothy J Key; Elizabeth A Spencer; Veronica Hellstrom; Jonas Manjer; Bo Hedblad; Eiliv Lund; Tonje Braaten; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Laudina Rodríguez; Maria J Sánchez; Miren Dorronsoro; Aurelio Barricarte; Jose Maria Huerta; Androniki Naska; Antonia Trichopoulou; Domenico Palli; Valeria Pala; Teresa Norat; Amalia Mattiello; Rosario Tumino; Daphne van der A; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Elio Riboli; Petra H M Peeters
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.