Increasing response to mailed questionnaires by including a pencil/pen

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 162, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 261-266

  White, Emily ^a,b   Carney, Patricia A ^c   Kolar, Ann Shattuck ^a  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Data collection; Epidemiologic methods; Questionnaires

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; COST CONTROL; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; POSTAL MAIL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

AGED; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COST CONTROL; DATA COLLECTION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; NEW HAMPSHIRE; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; WASHINGTON; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 24144488734     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi194     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R. Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. (Monographs in epidemiology and biostatistics, vol 21). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992.
2. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002;324:1183-91.
3. Yammarino FJ, Skinner SJ, Childers TL. Understanding mail survey response behavior: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 1991;55:613-39.
4. Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 1993;57:62-79.
5. Aveyard P, Manaseki S, Griffin C. The cost-effectiveness of including pencils and erasers with self-completion epidemiological questionnaires. Public Health 2001;115:80-1.
6. Hoffman SC, Burke AE, Helzlsouer KJ, et al. Controlled trial of the effect of length, incentives, and follow-up techniques on response to a mailed questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 1998;148:1007-11.
7. Etter J-F, Perneger TV, Ronchi A. Collecting saliva samples by mail. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:141-6.
8. Carney PA, Poplack SP, Wells WA, et al. Development and design of a population-based mammography registry: The New Hampshire Mammography Network. Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:367-72.
9. White E, Patterson RE, Kristal AR, et al. VITamins And Lifestyle cohort study: study design and characteristics of supplement users. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:83-93.
10. Clark TJ, Khan KS, Gupta JK. Provision of pen along with questionnaire does not increase the response rate to a postal survey: a randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:595-6.
11. Willimack DK, Schuman H, Pennell B-E, et al. Effects of a prepaid nonmonetary incentive on response rates and response quality in a face-to-face survey. Public Opin Q 1995;59:78-92.