Cargando…
Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423]
BACKGROUND: A systematic review identified a range of methods, which can influence response rates. However, analysis specific to a healthcare setting, and in particular, involving people expected to be poor responders, was missing, We examined the effect of pre-warning letters on response rates to a...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534787/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15537429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-31 |
_version_ | 1782122004270284800 |
---|---|
author | Harrison, Roger A Cock, Don |
author_facet | Harrison, Roger A Cock, Don |
author_sort | Harrison, Roger A |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A systematic review identified a range of methods, which can influence response rates. However, analysis specific to a healthcare setting, and in particular, involving people expected to be poor responders, was missing, We examined the effect of pre-warning letters on response rates to a postal survey of sedentary patients whom we expected a low rate of response. METHODS: Participants were randomised to receive a pre-warning letter or no pre-warning letter, seven days before sending the main questionnaire. The main questionnaire included a covering letter and pre-paid return envelope. After seven days, non-responders were sent a reminder letter and seven days later, another reminder letter with a further copy of the questionnaire and return envelope. RESULTS: 627 adults, with a mean age of 48 years (SD 13, range 18 to 78) of whom 69.2% (434/627) were women, were randomised. 49.0% (307/627) of patients were allocated to receive a pre-warning letter and 51.0% (320/627) no pre-warning letter, seven days in advance of posting the main questionnaire. The final response rate to the main questionnaire was 30.0% (92/307) amongst those sent a pre-warning letter and 20.9% (67/320) not sent a pre-warning letter, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.60 (95% CI 1.1, 2.30). CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low cost method of sending a pre-warning letter had a modest impact on increasing response rates to a postal questionnaire sent to a group of patients for whom a low response rate was anticipated. Investigators should consider incorporating this simple intervention when conducting postal surveys, to reduce the potential for nonresponse bias and to increase the study power. Methods other than postal surveys may be needed however when a low response rate to postal surveys is likely. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-534787 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2004 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-5347872004-12-04 Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423] Harrison, Roger A Cock, Don BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: A systematic review identified a range of methods, which can influence response rates. However, analysis specific to a healthcare setting, and in particular, involving people expected to be poor responders, was missing, We examined the effect of pre-warning letters on response rates to a postal survey of sedentary patients whom we expected a low rate of response. METHODS: Participants were randomised to receive a pre-warning letter or no pre-warning letter, seven days before sending the main questionnaire. The main questionnaire included a covering letter and pre-paid return envelope. After seven days, non-responders were sent a reminder letter and seven days later, another reminder letter with a further copy of the questionnaire and return envelope. RESULTS: 627 adults, with a mean age of 48 years (SD 13, range 18 to 78) of whom 69.2% (434/627) were women, were randomised. 49.0% (307/627) of patients were allocated to receive a pre-warning letter and 51.0% (320/627) no pre-warning letter, seven days in advance of posting the main questionnaire. The final response rate to the main questionnaire was 30.0% (92/307) amongst those sent a pre-warning letter and 20.9% (67/320) not sent a pre-warning letter, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.60 (95% CI 1.1, 2.30). CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low cost method of sending a pre-warning letter had a modest impact on increasing response rates to a postal questionnaire sent to a group of patients for whom a low response rate was anticipated. Investigators should consider incorporating this simple intervention when conducting postal surveys, to reduce the potential for nonresponse bias and to increase the study power. Methods other than postal surveys may be needed however when a low response rate to postal surveys is likely. BioMed Central 2004-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC534787/ /pubmed/15537429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-31 Text en Copyright © 2004 Harrison and Cock; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Harrison, Roger A Cock, Don Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423] |
title | Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423] |
title_full | Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423] |
title_fullStr | Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423] |
title_full_unstemmed | Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423] |
title_short | Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423] |
title_sort | increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients – a randomised controlled trial [isrctn45665423] |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534787/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15537429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-31 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT harrisonrogera increasingresponsetoapostalsurveyofsedentarypatientsarandomisedcontrolledtrialisrctn45665423 AT cockdon increasingresponsetoapostalsurveyofsedentarypatientsarandomisedcontrolledtrialisrctn45665423 |