Literature DB >> 15972931

Increasing response to mailed questionnaires by including a pencil/pen.

Emily White1, Patricia A Carney, Ann Shattuck Kolar.   

Abstract

Nonmonetary incentives lead to small increases in response rates to mailed questionnaires. However, inclusion of a pen or pencil, which may be a facilitating factor as well as a reward, has not been shown to improve response to health surveys in prior trials. In 2001 and 2002, the authors conducted two US trials in which a study-logo pen or pencil was randomly included in a second questionnaire mailed to nonresponders to a first mailing. In the first study, of 10,686 nonresponders to a cohort recruitment mailing, response to the second mailing was 55% with inclusion of a pen versus 40% without one (p < 0.001). In the second study, of 141 nonresponders to a pilot follow-up survey conducted 2 years after entry into a cohort, response was 43% with inclusion of a pencil versus 24% without one (p = 0.02). This 15-19 percentage point increase for mailing 2 translated to a 5-6 percentage point increase after the two mailings combined. In a simulated study of three mailings based on these studies, the overall response rate increased by 4 percentage points at no added cost through inclusion of a pencil in the second mailing. The additional cost of the pencil was compensated for by the reduced number of nonrespondents sent packets at the third mailing. This study supports including a study-logo pen or pencil in a second questionnaire mailing to nonrespondents as a cost-effective method of increasing response rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15972931     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi194

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


  7 in total

1.  Factors associated with response to a follow-up postal questionnaire in a cohort of American Indians.

Authors:  Sandra L Edwards; Martha L Slattery; Alison M Edwards; Carol Sweeney; Maureen A Murtaugh; Leslie E Palmer; Lillian Tom-Orme
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Using pens as an incentive for trial recruitment of older adults: An embedded randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Katie Whiteside; Lydia Flett; Alex Mitchell; Caroline Fairhurst; Sarah Cockayne; Sara Rodgers; David Torgerson
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-03-21

3.  Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Rachel Cunningham-Burley; Jenny Roche; Caroline Fairhurst; Sarah Cockayne; Catherine Hewitt; Heather Iles-Smith; David J Torgerson
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2020-06-09

Review 4.  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

5.  The effect of two lottery-style incentives on response rates to postal questionnaires in a prospective cohort study in preschool children at high risk of asthma: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Lonneke B van der Mark; Karina E van Wonderen; Jacob Mohrs; Patrick Je Bindels; Milo A Puhan; Gerben Ter Riet
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 6.  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.  The impact of non-responders on health and lifestyle outcomes in an intervention study.

Authors:  Elsebeth Hansen; Kirsten Fonager; Kirsten S Freund; Jørgen Lous
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2014-09-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.