OBJECTIVE: This study examines the effectiveness and costs of follow-up phone calls in improving response rates to a community survey. METHODS:Non-responders to a postal survey were randomly allocated to receive a phone call or no phone call. The resources used for the development and implementation of the survey were documented. The response rates and cost per level of follow-up contact examined. RESULTS: Follow-up phone calls led to a statistical significant increase in the number of responses to a community-wide survey, relative to no phone call. This relative increase in responses (n=62 for the follow-up phone call group versus n=1 for controls), did not increase the absolute survey response rate sufficiently (from 38.5% for two mailed surveys to 39.8% for two mailed surveys plus a phone call) to justify the phone call costs. Scenario analyses show increasing the initial response rate by 10% and conducting a second mailed survey achieves greater marginal cost savings than increasing the response rate to the second mailout or the follow-up phone calls. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a follow-up phone call was not cost effective. Survey research ought to primarily focus on obtaining optimal initial response rates by using strategies identified in a Cochrane meta-analytic review.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the effectiveness and costs of follow-up phone calls in improving response rates to a community survey. METHODS: Non-responders to a postal survey were randomly allocated to receive a phone call or no phone call. The resources used for the development and implementation of the survey were documented. The response rates and cost per level of follow-up contact examined. RESULTS: Follow-up phone calls led to a statistical significant increase in the number of responses to a community-wide survey, relative to no phone call. This relative increase in responses (n=62 for the follow-up phone call group versus n=1 for controls), did not increase the absolute survey response rate sufficiently (from 38.5% for two mailed surveys to 39.8% for two mailed surveys plus a phone call) to justify the phone call costs. Scenario analyses show increasing the initial response rate by 10% and conducting a second mailed survey achieves greater marginal cost savings than increasing the response rate to the second mailout or the follow-up phone calls. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a follow-up phone call was not cost effective. Survey research ought to primarily focus on obtaining optimal initial response rates by using strategies identified in a Cochrane meta-analytic review.
Authors: Anthony Shakeshaft; Dennis Petrie; Christopher Doran; Courtney Breen; Robert Sanson-Fisher Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.295
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: Anthony Shakeshaft; Christopher Doran; Dennis Petrie; Courtney Breen; Alys Havard; Ansari Abudeen; Elissa Harwood; Anton Clifford; Catherine D'Este; Stuart Gilmour; Rob Sanson-Fisher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Maisie K Rowland; Ashley J Adamson; Ivan Poliakov; Jennifer Bradley; Emma Simpson; Patrick Olivier; Emma Foster Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Héctor José Navarro; Anthony Shakeshaft; Christopher M Doran; Dennis J Petrie Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 3.390