Cargando…
Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks e...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684081/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34922447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01476-7 |
_version_ | 1784617543787347968 |
---|---|
author | McBride, Emily Mase, Hiromi Kerrison, Robert S. Marlow, Laura A. V. Waller, Jo |
author_facet | McBride, Emily Mase, Hiromi Kerrison, Robert S. Marlow, Laura A. V. Waller, Jo |
author_sort | McBride, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks ecological validity, given that multiple techniques are often combined in routine practice. METHODS: We used a two-armed parallel randomised controlled trial (n = 2702), nested within a cross-sectional health survey study, to evaluate whether using a pragmatic combination of behavioural science and evidenced-based techniques (e.g., personalisation, social norms messaging) in a study invitation letter increased response to the survey, when compared with a standard invitation letter. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. We tested this in a sample of women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening in England. RESULTS: Overall, 646 participants responded to the survey (response rate [RR] = 23.9%). Logistic regression revealed higher odds of response in the intervention arm (n = 357/1353, RR = 26.4%) compared with the control arm (n = 289/1349, RR = 21.4%), while adjusting for age, deprivation, clinical site, and clinical test result (aOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09–1.55). CONCLUSION: Applying easy-to-implement behavioural science and evidence-based methods to routine invitation letters improved postal response to a health-related survey, whilst adjusting for demographic characteristics. Our findings provide support for the pragmatic adoption of combined techniques in routine research to increase response to postal surveys. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15113095. Registered 7 May 2019 – retrospectively registered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01476-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8684081 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86840812021-12-20 Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial McBride, Emily Mase, Hiromi Kerrison, Robert S. Marlow, Laura A. V. Waller, Jo BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks ecological validity, given that multiple techniques are often combined in routine practice. METHODS: We used a two-armed parallel randomised controlled trial (n = 2702), nested within a cross-sectional health survey study, to evaluate whether using a pragmatic combination of behavioural science and evidenced-based techniques (e.g., personalisation, social norms messaging) in a study invitation letter increased response to the survey, when compared with a standard invitation letter. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. We tested this in a sample of women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening in England. RESULTS: Overall, 646 participants responded to the survey (response rate [RR] = 23.9%). Logistic regression revealed higher odds of response in the intervention arm (n = 357/1353, RR = 26.4%) compared with the control arm (n = 289/1349, RR = 21.4%), while adjusting for age, deprivation, clinical site, and clinical test result (aOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09–1.55). CONCLUSION: Applying easy-to-implement behavioural science and evidence-based methods to routine invitation letters improved postal response to a health-related survey, whilst adjusting for demographic characteristics. Our findings provide support for the pragmatic adoption of combined techniques in routine research to increase response to postal surveys. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15113095. Registered 7 May 2019 – retrospectively registered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01476-7. BioMed Central 2021-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8684081/ /pubmed/34922447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01476-7 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 Article McBride, Emily Mase, Hiromi Kerrison, Robert S. Marlow, Laura A. V. Waller, Jo Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial |
title | Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial |
title_full | Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial |
title_fullStr | Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial |
title_short | Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial |
title_sort | improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684081/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34922447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01476-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcbrideemily improvingpostalsurveyresponseusingbehaviouralscienceanestedrandomisedcontroltrial AT masehiromi improvingpostalsurveyresponseusingbehaviouralscienceanestedrandomisedcontroltrial AT kerrisonroberts improvingpostalsurveyresponseusingbehaviouralscienceanestedrandomisedcontroltrial AT marlowlauraav improvingpostalsurveyresponseusingbehaviouralscienceanestedrandomisedcontroltrial AT wallerjo improvingpostalsurveyresponseusingbehaviouralscienceanestedrandomisedcontroltrial |