Cargando…

Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Questionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Woolf, Benjamin, Edwards, Phil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34837965
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2
_version_ 1784606871552786432
author Woolf, Benjamin
Edwards, Phil
author_facet Woolf, Benjamin
Edwards, Phil
author_sort Woolf, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Questionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment. OBJECTIVES: Update the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study’s the risk of bias. METHODS: Inclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates. Study design: randomised controlled trails. Exclusion criteria: NA. Data sources: Studies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy. Data extraction: data was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: One hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20–1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I(2) = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99–1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results. CONCLUSIONS: Using the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates. FUNDING: Economic and Social Research Council. PREREGISTRATION: None. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8627623
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86276232021-11-30 Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis Woolf, Benjamin Edwards, Phil BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Questionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment. OBJECTIVES: Update the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study’s the risk of bias. METHODS: Inclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates. Study design: randomised controlled trails. Exclusion criteria: NA. Data sources: Studies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy. Data extraction: data was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: One hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20–1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I(2) = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99–1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results. CONCLUSIONS: Using the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates. FUNDING: Economic and Social Research Council. PREREGISTRATION: None. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2. BioMed Central 2021-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8627623/ /pubmed/34837965 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Woolf, Benjamin
Edwards, Phil
Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34837965
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2
work_keys_str_mv AT woolfbenjamin doesadvancecontactwithresearchparticipantsincreaseresponsetoquestionnairesanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT edwardsphil doesadvancecontactwithresearchparticipantsincreaseresponsetoquestionnairesanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis