Literature DB >> 19588449

Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Philip James Edwards1, Ian Roberts, Mike J Clarke, Carolyn Diguiseppi, Reinhard Wentz, Irene Kwan, Rachel Cooper, Lambert M Felix, Sarah Pratap.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postal and electronic questionnaires are widely used for data collection in epidemiological studies but non-response reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias. Finding ways to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires would improve the quality of health research.
OBJECTIVES: To identify effective strategies to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 14 electronic databases to February 2008 and manually searched the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews, and all issues of two journals. We contacted the authors of all trials or reviews to ask about unpublished trials. Where necessary, we also contacted authors to confirm methods of allocation used and to clarify results presented. We assessed the eligibility of each trial using pre-defined criteria. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of methods to increase response to postal or electronic questionnaires. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the trial participants, the intervention, the number randomised to intervention and comparison groups and allocation concealment. For each strategy, we estimated pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. We assessed evidence for selection bias using Egger's weighted regression method and Begg's rank correlation test and funnel plot. We assessed heterogeneity among trial odds ratios using a Chi(2) test and the degree of inconsistency between trial results was quantified using the I(2) statistic. MAIN
RESULTS: PostalWe found 481 eligible trials. The trials evaluated 110 different ways of increasing response to postal questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity among trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response were at least doubled using monetary incentives (odds ratio 1.87; 95% CI 1.73 to 2.04; heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I(2) = 84%), recorded delivery (1.76; 95% CI 1.43 to 2.18; P = 0.0001, I(2) = 71%), a teaser on the envelope - e.g. a comment suggesting to participants that they may benefit if they open it (3.08; 95% CI 1.27 to 7.44) and a more interesting questionnaire topic (2.00; 95% CI 1.32 to 3.04; P = 0.06, I(2) = 80%). The odds of response were substantially higher with pre-notification (1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.63; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 89%), follow-up contact (1.35; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.55; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 76%), unconditional incentives (1.61; 1.36 to 1.89; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 88%), shorter questionnaires (1.64; 95% CI 1.43 to 1.87; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 91%), providing a second copy of the questionnaire at follow up (1.46; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.90; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 82%), mentioning an obligation to respond (1.61; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22; P = 0.98, I(2) = 0%) and university sponsorship (1.32; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.54; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 83%). The odds of response were also increased with non-monetary incentives (1.15; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 79%), personalised questionnaires (1.14; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 63%), use of hand-written addresses (1.25; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; P = 0.32, I(2) = 14%), use of stamped return envelopes as opposed to franked return envelopes (1.24; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.35; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 69%), an assurance of confidentiality (1.33; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.42) and first class outward mailing (1.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21; P = 0.78, I(2) = 0%). The odds of response were reduced when the questionnaire included questions of a sensitive nature (0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00; P = 0.51, I(2) = 0%).ElectronicWe found 32 eligible trials. The trials evaluated 27 different ways of increasing response to electronic questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity among trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response were increased by more than a half using non-monetary incentives (1.72; 95% CI 1.09 to 2.72; heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I(2) = 95%), shorter e-questionnaires (1.73; 1.40 to 2.13; P = 0.08, I(2) = 68%), including a statement that others had responded (1.52; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.70), and a more interesting topic (1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by a third using a lottery with immediate notification of results (1.37; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.65), an offer of survey results (1.36; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.61), and using a white background (1.31; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.56). The odds of response were also increased with personalised e-questionnaires (1.24; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32; P = 0.07, I(2) = 41%), using a simple header (1.23; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48), using textual representation of response categories (1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36), and giving a deadline (1.18; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34). The odds of response tripled when a picture was included in an e-mail (3.05; 95% CI 1.84 to 5.06; P = 0.27, I(2) = 19%). The odds of response were reduced when "Survey" was mentioned in the e-mail subject line (0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; P = 0.33, I(2) = 0%), and when the e-mail included a male signature (0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.96, I(2) = 0%). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Health researchers using postal and electronic questionnaires can increase response using the strategies shown to be effective in this systematic review.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19588449      PMCID: PMC8941848          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  214 in total

Review 1.  Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.

Authors:  E A Engels; C H Schmid; N Terrin; I Olkin; J Lau
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Provision of pen along with questionnaire does not increase the response rate to a postal survey: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  T J Clark; K S Khan; J K Gupta
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  A randomized trial of the impact of certified mail on response rate to a physician survey, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  M L Del Valle; H Morgenstern; T L Rogstad; C Albright; B G Vickrey
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.651

4.  From the generic to the condition-specific?: Instrument order effects in Quality of Life Assessment.

Authors:  Elaine McColl; Martin Paul Eccles; Nicolette Sarah Rousseau; Ian Nicholas Steen; David William Parkin; Jeremy Michael Grimshaw
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Efficacy of a mail survey appeal for a dissertation.

Authors:  John F Gaski
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2004-12

6.  Effect of a newspaper article on the response to a postal questionnaire.

Authors:  K A Salvesen; L J Vatten
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Variations in general practitioners' response to postal questionnaires.

Authors:  A Cartwright; A W Ward
Journal:  Br J Prev Soc Med       Date:  1968-10

8.  Timing payments to subjects of mail surveys: cost-effectiveness and bias.

Authors:  M Schweitzer; D A Asch
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Effects of characteristics of the survey instrument on response rates to a mail survey of community hospitals.

Authors:  R M Mullner; P S Levy; C S Byre; D Matthews
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1982 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

10.  A cluster-randomized trial of the significance of a reminder procedure in a patient evaluation survey in general practice.

Authors:  Hanne N Heje; Peter Vedsted; Frede Olesen
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.038

View more
  497 in total

1.  Management of incidental findings during imaging research in "healthy" volunteers: current UK practice.

Authors:  T C Booth; A D Waldman; J M Wardlaw; S A Taylor; A Jackson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Pharmacists' attitudes towards an evidence-based approach for over-the-counter medication.

Authors:  Lezley-Anne Hanna; Carmel M Hughes
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2011-11-23

Review 3.  Questionnaire surveys of dentists on radiology.

Authors:  A M Shelley; P Brunton; K Horner
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Expectations for feedback in adverse drug reporting by healthcare professionals in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Ingrid Oosterhuis; Florence P A M van Hunsel; Eugène P van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Pharmacy students' views of faculty feedback on academic performance.

Authors:  Maurice Hall; Lezley-Anne Hanna; Siobhan Quinn
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  Estimating physical activity using a cell phone questionnaire sent by means of short message service (SMS): a randomized population-based study.

Authors:  Ylva Trolle Lagerros; Sven Sandin; Christin Bexelius; Jan-Eric Litton; Marie Löf
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  Referring physicians' discordance with the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator guidelines: a national survey.

Authors:  Jorge M Castellanos; Lisa M Smith; Paul D Varosy; Christine Dehlendorf; Gregory M Marcus
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 6.343

8.  Associations between Achievement Goal Orientations and Academic Performance Among Students at a U.K. Pharmacy School.

Authors:  Maurice Hall; Lezley-Anne Hanna; Alan Hanna; Karen Hall
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 2.047

9.  A cross-sectional survey of the Maltese general public on medication wastage.

Authors:  Lorna Marie West; Lesley Diack; Maria Cordina; Derek Stewart
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2016-01-06

10.  Physician perceptions about living organ donation in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

Authors:  S Ansari; M B Bromberg; S B Gibson
Journal:  Clin Neurol Neurosurg       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 1.876

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.