Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 52, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 585-587

  Wensing, Michel ^a   Mainz, Jan ^b   Kramme, Odd ^c   Jung, Hans Peter ^a   Ribacke, Mats ^d  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

General practice; International studies; Randomized trial; Response rate; Selection bias; Survey methodology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DENMARK; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESPONSE TIME;

ADULT; DENMARK; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; FAMILY PRACTICE; HUMANS; MEMORY; NETHERLANDS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 0033153178     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00024-4     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Asch D.A., Jedrziewksi M.K., Christakis N.A. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 50:1997;1129-1136.
2. Ehnfors M., Smedby B. Patient satisfaction surveys subsequent to hospital care. Problems of sampling, non-response and other losses Qual Assur Health Care. 5:1993;19-32.
3. Peto V., Coulter A., Bond A. Factors affecting general practitioners' recruitment of patients into a prospective study. Fam Pract. 10:1993;207-211.
4. Rubin H.R. Can patients evaluate the quality of hospital care? Med Care Rev. 47:1990;267-325.
5. Etter J.F., Perneger T.V. Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 50:1997;1123-1128.
6. Crosby Fm Ventura M., Feldman M.J. Examination of a survey methodology. Dillman's Total Design Method Nurs Res. 38:1989;56-59.
7. Etter J.F., Perneger T.V., Laporte J.D. Unexpected effects of a prior feedback letter and a professional layout on the response rate to a mail survey in Geneva. J Epidemiol Community Health. 52:1998;128-129.
8. Bamford C., Jaboby A. Development of patient satisfaction questionnaires. I. Methodological issues Qual Health Care. 1:1992;153-157.
9. Wensing M., Grol R., Smits A., Van Montfort P. Evaluation of general practice care by chronically ill patients. Effect of the method of administration Fam Pract. 13:1996;386-390.
10. Brown A.P.L., Lawrie H.E.R., Kennedy A.D.M., Webb J.A.G., Torgerson D.J., Grant A.M. Cost effectiveness of a prize draw on response to a postal questionnaire. Results of a randomized trial among orthopaedic outpatients in Edinburgh J Epidemiol Community Health. 51:1997;463-464.
11. Schweitzer M., Asch D.A. Timing payments to subjects of mail surveys. Cost-effectiveness and bias J Clin Epidemiol. 48:1995;1325-1329.
12. Choi B.C.K., Pak A.W.P., Purdham J.T. Effects of mailing strategies on response rates, response time, and cost in a questionnaire study among nurses. Epidemiology. 1:1990;72-74.
13. Burchell N., Marsh C. The effect of questionnaire length on survey response. Qual Quant. 26:1992;233-244.
14. Church A.H. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates. A meta-analysis Public Opin Q. 57:1993;62-79.
15. Fox R.J., Crask M.R., Kim J. Mail survey response rate. A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opin Q. 52:1988;467-491.
16. Hox J.J., De Leeuw E.D. A comparison of nonresponse in mail, telephone and face-to-face surveys. Qual Quant. 28:1994;329-344.
17. Yammarino F.J., Skinner S.J., Childers T.L. Understanding mail survey response behavior. A meta-analysis Public Opin Q. 55:1991;613-639.
18. Tai S.S., Nazareth I., Haines A., Jowett C. A randomized trial of the impact of telephone and recorded delivery reminders on the response rate to research questionnaires. J Public Health Med. 19:1997;219-221.