Marleen M H J van Gelder1, Richelle Vlenterie2, Joanna IntHout2, Lucien J L P G Engelen3, Alina Vrieling2, Tom H van de Belt3. 1. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Radboud REshape Innovation Center, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Marleen.vanGelder@radboudumc.nl. 2. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Radboud REshape Innovation Center, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate response-inducing strategies for observational studies using health-related questionnaires or interviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science up to December 28, 2017. Studies evaluating the effect of a response-inducing strategy on participation rates of observational studies were included. For each strategy, we estimated pooled response ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman random effects model with the final participation rate as outcome, stratified for type of participants and method of data collection. RESULTS: The search yielded 168 eligible studies involving 367,616 potential participants and 33 strategies. Among patients, response-inducing strategies for paper-based questionnaires included unconditional monetary incentives (response ratio 1.15; 95% CI 1.09-1.21) and shorter questionnaires (1.04; 1.02-1.06). Among nonpatients, a personalized mode of delivery (1.47; 1.24-1.74), more expensive mailing type (1.25; 1.00-1.56), unconditional monetary incentives (1.24; 1.12-1.38), prenotification (1.12; 1.03-1.22), unconditional scratch lottery tickets (1.09; 1.01-1.18), and shorter questionnaires (1.06; 1.02-1.11) increased response rates to paper-based questionnaires. For Web-based questionnaires and interviews among nonpatients, response rates were increased by conditional lottery tickets (1.17; 1.02-1.34) and conditional monetary incentives (1.39; 1.01-1.91), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of strategies evaluated were unsuccessful, some may increase response rates to observational studies, particularly among nonpatients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate response-inducing strategies for observational studies using health-related questionnaires or interviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science up to December 28, 2017. Studies evaluating the effect of a response-inducing strategy on participation rates of observational studies were included. For each strategy, we estimated pooled response ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman random effects model with the final participation rate as outcome, stratified for type of participants and method of data collection. RESULTS: The search yielded 168 eligible studies involving 367,616 potential participants and 33 strategies. Among patients, response-inducing strategies for paper-based questionnaires included unconditional monetary incentives (response ratio 1.15; 95% CI 1.09-1.21) and shorter questionnaires (1.04; 1.02-1.06). Among nonpatients, a personalized mode of delivery (1.47; 1.24-1.74), more expensive mailing type (1.25; 1.00-1.56), unconditional monetary incentives (1.24; 1.12-1.38), prenotification (1.12; 1.03-1.22), unconditional scratch lottery tickets (1.09; 1.01-1.18), and shorter questionnaires (1.06; 1.02-1.11) increased response rates to paper-based questionnaires. For Web-based questionnaires and interviews among nonpatients, response rates were increased by conditional lottery tickets (1.17; 1.02-1.34) and conditional monetary incentives (1.39; 1.01-1.91), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of strategies evaluated were unsuccessful, some may increase response rates to observational studies, particularly among nonpatients.
Authors: Emily McBride; Hiromi Mase; Robert S Kerrison; Laura A V Marlow; Jo Waller Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Michelle C Krzyzanowski; Paul N Kizakevich; Vanessa Duren-Winfield; Randall Eckhoff; Joel Hampton; Loneke T Blackman Carr; Georgia McCauley; Kristina B Roberson; Elijah O Onsomu; John Williams; Amanda Alise Price Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.773