No increase in response rate by adding a web response option to a postal population survey: A randomized trial

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2007, Pages

  Brøgger, Jan ^a,c   Nystad, Wenche ^b   Cappelen, Inger ^b   Bakke, Per ^c  

^a HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

Author keywords

Bias; Epidemiology; Internet; Questionnaire; Randomized control trial; Response rate

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASTHMA; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NORWAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZATION; SMOKING; TELEPHONE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; POSTAL MAIL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESPIRATORY SYSTEM; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; POSTAL SERVICE; RESPIRATORY SYSTEM;

EID: 38049134975     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9.5.e40     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res 2002 Nov 22;4(2):E13
2. Smith TW. Are representative Internet surveys possible? Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 2001. Achieving Data Quality in a Statistical Agency: A Methodological Perspective. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2001. URL: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-522-XIE/2001001/session18/s18d.pdf
3. Schonlau M. Will web surveys ever become part of mainstream research? J Med Internet Res 2004 Sep 23;6(3):e31
4. Hewson C, Yule P, Laurent D, Vogel C. Internet Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social and Behavioural Sciences. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2003:26-55.
5. Etter JF, Perneger TV. A comparison of cigarette smokers recruited through the Internet or by mail. Int J Epidemiol 2001 Jun;30(3):521-525
6. Hwang YH, Fesenmaier DR. Coverage error embedded in self-selected Internet-based samples: a case study of Northern Indiana. J Travel Res 2004;42(3):297-304.
7. Schonlau M, Fricker RDJr, Elliot M. Conducting Research Surveys via E-mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2002. p. 19-32. URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1480/index.html
8. Porter SR, Whitcomb ME. The impact of contact type on Web survey response rates. Public Opin Q 2003;67(4):579-588.
9. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R. A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 2004;68:94-101
10. Baer A, Saroiu S, Koutsky LA. Obtaining sensitive data through the Web: an example of design and methods. Epidemiology 2002 Nov;13(6):640-645
11. Harewood GC, Yacavone RF, Locke GR, Wiersema MJ. Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys: e-mail versus standard mail versus telephone. Am J Gastroenterol 2001 Dec;96(12):3312-3317.
12. Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, Sutton S. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract 2003 Oct;20(5):545-551
13. Faas T, Schoen H. Putting a questionnaire on the Web is not enough: a comparison of online and offline surveys conducted in the context of the German federal election 2002. J Off Stat 2006;22:177-190.
14. World Health Organization. World Health Survey. WHO. URL: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/en/ [accessed 2007 Jan 30]
15. de Leeuw ED. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. J Off Stat 2005;21:233-255
16. Griffin DH, Fischer DP, Morgan MT. Testing an Internet response option for the American Community Survey. Paper presented at: American Association for Public Opinion Research 56th Annual Conference; May 17-20, 2001; Montreal, Quebec
17. Schneider SJ, Cantor D, Malakhoff L, et al. Telephone, Internet and paper data collection modes for the Census 2000 short form. J Off Stat 2005;21:89-101
18. Radon K, Goldberg M, Becklake M, Pindur U, Hege I, Nowak D. Low acceptance of an internet-based online questionnaire by young adults. Epidemiology 2002 Nov;13(6):748-749.
19. Link MW, Mokdad AH. Alternative modes for health surveillance surveys: an experiment with web, mail, and telephone. Epidemiology 2005 Sep;16(5):701-704.
20. Vaage OF. Norwegian Media Barometer. Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway; 2003. URL: http://www.ssb.no/medie_en/arkiv/art-2004-03-26-01-en.html
21. Gulsvik A. Prevalence of respiratory symptoms in the city of Oslo. Scand J Respir Dis 1979 Oct;60(5):275-285.
22. Brogger J, Bakke P, Eide GE, Johansen B, Andersen A, Gulsvik A. Long-term changes in adult asthma prevalence. Eur Respir J 2003 Mar;21(3):468-472
23. CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001 Apr 17;134(8):663-694
24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Measuring the Information Economy. Paris, France: OECD; 2002. URL: URL: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/16/14/1835738.pdf [accessed 2007 Dec 19]