Effects on subject response of information brochures and small cash incentives in a mail-based case-control study

Annals of Epidemiology

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 117-124

  Parkes, Robert ^a   Kreiger, Nancy ^a,b   James, Bonnie ^a   Johnson, Kenneth C ^c  

^a CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c Bur Microbiol Lab Ctr Dis C   (Canada)

Author keywords

Case control studies; Epidemiologic methods; Incentive; Response rates

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CANCER RESEARCH; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CORRESPONDENCE; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; NEOPLASMS; ONTARIO; PAMPHLETS; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0033973836     PISSN: 10472797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1047-2797(99)00047-2     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Wachholder S., McLaughlin J.K., Silverman D.T., Mandel J.S. Selection of controls in case-control studies. 1. Principles. Am J Epidemiol. 135:1992;1019-1028.
2. Linsky A.S. Stimulating responses to mail questionnaires. A review Public Opin Q. 39:1975;82-101.
3. 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.
4. Marrett L.D., Kreiger N., Dodds L., Hilditch S. The effect on response rates of offering a small incentive with a mailed questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol. 2:1992;745-753.
5. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychology. 32:1948;221-233.
6. Kreiger N., Nishri E.D. The effect of nonresponse on estimation of relative risk in a case-control study. Ann Epidemiol. 7:1997;194-199.
7. SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD [computer program]. Version 6.12. 1996;SAS Institute Inc, Carey, NC.
8. McLaughlin J.R., Sloan M.R., Janovjak D.P. Cancer Survival in Ontario. 1995;The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, Toronto.
9. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys. The Total Design Method:1978;John Wiley, New York.
10. Savitz D.A., Hamman R.F., Grace C., Stroo K. Respondents attitudes regarding participation in an epidemiological study. Am J Epidemiol. 123:1986;362-366.
11. Taylor C., Trowbridge P., Chilvers C. Stress and cancer surveys. Attitudes of participants in a case-control study J Epidemiol Commun Health. 45:1991;317-320.
12. Bakke P., Gulsvik A., Lilleng P., Overå O., Hanoa R., Eide G.E. Postal survey on airborne occupation exposure and respiratory disorders in Norway. Causes and consequences of non-response J Epidemiol Commun Health. 44:1990;316-320.
13. Leitner DW, Myers BE, Sardeson K, Keller PFG, Chang TJ. If you want to know what factors influence response rate, why not ask? Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. Am Stat Assoc; 1979:359-362.
14. Walter S.D., Marrett L.D., Mishkel N. Effect of contact letter on control response rates in cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 127:1988;691-694.
15. Hauck M., Cox M. Locating a sample by random digit dialing. Public Opin Q. 38:1974;253-260.
16. Schrott H.G., Merideth N. Recruitment by screening entire communities, the Iowa Lipid Research Clinic experience. Circulation. 66(suppl 4):1982;23-26.
17. McDearmon M., Bradford R.H. Recruitment by the use of mass mailings. Circulation. 66(suppl 4):1982;27-31.
18. Borhani N.O., Tonascia J., Schlundt D.G., Prineas R.J., Jefferys J.L. Recruitment in the Hypertension Prevention Trial. Control Clin Trials. 10:1989;30S-39S.
19. Gerace T.A., George V.A., Arango I.G. Response rates to six recruitment mailing formats and two messages about a nutrition program for women 50-79 years old. Control Clin Trials. 16:1995;422-431.
20. Easton A.N., Price J.H., Telljohann S.K., Boehm K. An informational versus monetary incentive in increasing physicians' response rates. Psychol Rep. 81:1997;968-970.
21. Little R.E., Davis A.K. Effectiveness of various methods of contact and reimbursement on response rates of pregnant women to a mail questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol. 120(1):1984;161-163.
22. John E.M., Savitz D.A. Effect of a monetary incentive on response to a mail survey. Ann Epidemiol. 4:1994;231-235.
23. Deehan A., Templeton L., Taylor C., Drummond C., Strang J. The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study. Br J Gen Pract. 47:1997;87-90.
24. Mizes J.S., Fleece E.L., Roos C. Incentives for increasing return rates. Magnitude levels, response bias, and format Public Opin Q. 48:1984;794-800.
25. Hackler J., Bourgette P. Dollars, dissonance, and survey returns. Public Opin Q. 34:1970;69-81.
26. Biner P.M. Effects of cover letter appeal and monetary incentives on survey response. A reactance theory application. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 9:1988;99-106.
27. Hubbard R., Little E.L. Cash prizes and mail survey response rates. A threshold analysis J Acad Market Sci. 16:1988;42-44.
28. Schweitzer M., Asch D.A. Timing payments to subjects of mail surveys. Cost-effectiveness and bias J Clin Epidemiol. 48:1995;1325-1329.
29. Perneger T.V., Etter J.-F., Rougemont A. Randomized trial of use of a monetary incentive and a reminder card to increase the response rate to a mailed health survey. Am J Epidemiol. 138:1993;714-722.
30. Norman G.R., McFarlane A.H., Streiner D.L., Neale K. Health diaries. Strategies for compliance and relation to other measures Med Care. 20:1982;623-629.
31. Woodward A., Douglas B., Miles H. Chance of free dinner increases response to mail questionnaire. Intl J Epidemiol. 14:1985;641-642.
32. Spry V.M., Melbourne I.H., Sallis J.G., Hofstetter C.R., Elder J.P., Molgaard C.A. Recruiting survey respondents to mailed surveys. Controlled trials of incentives and prompts Am J Epidemiol. 130:1989;166-172.
33. Mortagy A.K., Howell J.B.L., Waters W.E. A useless raffle. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 39:1985;183-184.