Yimeng Guo1, Jacek A Kopec1, Jolanda Cibere1, Linda C Li1, Charles H Goldsmith1. 1. At the time of the study, Yimeng (Jimmy) Guo was with the University of British Columbia and Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, BC. Jacek A. Kopec is with the Arthritis Research Canada and the Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Public Health Practice, School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Jolanda Cibere is with Arthritis Research Canada and the Department of Medicine at the University of British Columbia. Linda C. Li is with Arthritis Research Canada and the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of British Columbia. Charles H. Goldsmith is with the Faculty of Health Science at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of several survey features on response rates in a general population health survey. METHODS:In 2012 and 2013, 8000 households in British Columbia, Canada, were randomly allocated to 1 of 7 survey variants, each containing a different combination of survey features. Features compared included administration modes (paper vs online), prepaid incentive ($2 coin vs none), lottery incentive (instant vs end-of-study), questionnaire length (10 minutes vs 30 minutes), and sampling frame (InfoCanada vs Canada Post). RESULTS: The overall response rate across the 7 groups was 27.9% (range = 17.1-43.4). All survey features except the sampling frame were associated with statistically significant differences in response rates. The survey mode elicited the largest effect on the odds of response (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.61, 2.59), whereas the sampling frame showed the least effect (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.98, 1.34). The highest response was achieved by mailing a short paper survey with a prepaid incentive. CONCLUSIONS: In a mailed general population health survey in Canada, a 40% to 50% response rate can be expected. Questionnaire administration mode, survey length, and type of incentive affect response rates.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of several survey features on response rates in a general population health survey. METHODS: In 2012 and 2013, 8000 households in British Columbia, Canada, were randomly allocated to 1 of 7 survey variants, each containing a different combination of survey features. Features compared included administration modes (paper vs online), prepaid incentive ($2 coin vs none), lottery incentive (instant vs end-of-study), questionnaire length (10 minutes vs 30 minutes), and sampling frame (InfoCanada vs Canada Post). RESULTS: The overall response rate across the 7 groups was 27.9% (range = 17.1-43.4). All survey features except the sampling frame were associated with statistically significant differences in response rates. The survey mode elicited the largest effect on the odds of response (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.61, 2.59), whereas the sampling frame showed the least effect (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.98, 1.34). The highest response was achieved by mailing a short paper survey with a prepaid incentive. CONCLUSIONS: In a mailed general population health survey in Canada, a 40% to 50% response rate can be expected. Questionnaire administration mode, survey length, and type of incentive affect response rates.
Authors: Terry S Field; Cynthia A Cadoret; Martin L Brown; Marvella Ford; Sarah M Greene; Deanna Hill; Mark C Hornbrook; Richard T Meenan; Mary Jo White; Jane M Zapka Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Enrique Rey; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah Jenkins; Kandace Lackore; Nicholas J Talley; Richard G Locke Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Shannon Sahlqvist; Yena Song; Fiona Bull; Emma Adams; John Preston; David Ogilvie Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Jim McCambridge; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Ian R White; Zarnie Khadjesari; Elizabeth Murray; Stuart Linke; Simon G Thompson; Christine Godfrey; Paul Wallace Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Stephen D Brealey; Christine Atwell; Stirling Bryan; Simon Coulton; Helen Cox; Ben Cross; Fiona Fylan; Andrew Garratt; Fiona J Gilbert; Maureen G C Gillan; Maggie Hendry; Kerenza Hood; Helen Houston; David King; Veronica Morton; Jo Orchard; Michael Robling; Ian T Russell; David Torgerson; Valerie Wadsworth; Clare Wilkinson Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-27 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
Authors: Pam Leece; Mohit Bhandari; Sheila Sprague; Marc F Swiontkowski; Emil H Schemitsch; Paul Tornetta; P J Devereaux; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2004-09-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Hanne C Lie; Corina S Rueegg; Sophie D Fosså; Jon H Loge; Ellen Ruud; Cecilie E Kiserud Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Rob W Sanson-Fisher; Breanne T Hobden; Mariko L Carey; Heidi E Turon; Amy E Waller; Anthony M Proietto Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laurel A Gaeddert; Alexandra L Schneider; Christin N Miller; Lindsey L Monteith; Lisa A Brenner; Jodie Katon; Claire A Hoffmire Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2020-08-22 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Synne-Kristin Hoffart Bøhn; K F Vandraas; C E Kiserud; A A Dahl; L Thorsen; M Ewertz; H C Lie; R Falk; K V Reinertsen Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Vincent I O Agyapong; Kelly Mrklas; Michal Juhás; Joy Omeje; Arto Ohinmaa; Serdar M Dursun; Andrew J Greenshaw Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Natalie McCormick; Kathryn Reimer; Ali Famouri; Carlo A Marra; J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lisa Gallicchio; Joanne W Elena; Sarah Fagan; Marjorie Carter; Ann S Hamilton; Theresa A Hastert; Lisa L Hunter; Jie Li; Charles F Lynch; Joel Milam; Morgan M Millar; Denise Modjeski; Lisa E Paddock; Amanda R Reed; Lisa B Moses; Antoinette M Stroup; Carol Sweeney; Edward J Trapido; Michele M West; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Kathy J Helzlsouer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 4.254