Literature DB >> 8038256

Different response rates in a trial of two envelop styles in mail survey research.

D A Asch1, N A Christakis.   

Abstract

To determine whether academic physicians' response rates to a mail survey depend on the envelope used to mail the survey, we randomized 901 internists affiliated with a university department of medicine to receive a survey in either a university envelope or a Veterans Affairs envelope. The response rate among those receiving the Veterans Affairs envelope (41%) was 20% higher than the response rate among those receiving the university envelope (34%). We conclude that the packaging of a mail survey can influence the response rate.

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8038256     DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199405000-00020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  7 in total

1.  A comparison of response rate and time according to the survey methods used: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sang-Wook Yi; Jae Seok Hong; Heechoul Ohrr; Jee Jeon Yi
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Lottery-based versus fixed incentives to increase clinicians' response to surveys.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Rachel Kohn; Aaron Dornbrand-Lo; Thomas Metkus; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-14       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): methods and 1996 response rates from 11 states.

Authors:  B C Gilbert; H B Shulman; L A Fischer; M M Rogers
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  1999-12

4.  Influenza vaccination of pregnant women: attitudes and behaviors of Oregon physician prenatal care providers.

Authors:  Robert F Arao; Kenneth D Rosenberg; Shannon McWeeney; Katrina Hedberg
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2015-04

5.  Barriers to participation in a patient satisfaction survey: who are we missing?

Authors:  Angèle Gayet-Ageron; Thomas Agoritsas; Laura Schiesari; Véronique Kolly; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Getting physicians to open the survey: little evidence that an envelope teaser increases response rates.

Authors:  Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Kelly Burmeister; Katherine M James; Lindsey Haas; Jon C Tilburt; Timothy J Beebe
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-03-31       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 7.  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
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.