Cost-effectiveness of follow-up contact for a postal survey: A randomised controlled trial

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 508-512

  Breen, Courtney L ^a   Shakeshaft, Anthony P ^a   Doran, Christopher M ^a   Sanson Fisher, Rob W ^b   Mattick, Richard P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cost; Follow up; Non response; Randomised controlled trial; Response rate; Survey

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; POSTAL MAIL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REMINDER SYSTEM; STANDARD; TELEPHONE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REMINDER SYSTEMS; TELEPHONE;

EID: 79952118576     PISSN: 13260200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00598.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, et al. Methods to influence response to postal questionnaires (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2, 2007. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
2. Salim Silva M, Smith W, Bammer G. Telephone reminders are a cost effective way to improve responses in postal health surveys. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(2):115-8. (Pubitemid 34098463)
3. Saunders J, Aasland O, Babor T, De La Fuente J, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative project on the early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption II. Addiction. 1993;88:791-804. (Pubitemid 23194530)
4. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, WIlliams A. A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK general Population Survey. Working Papers No. 138. York (UK): Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995.
5. Kalantar J, Talley N. The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: A randomised study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(11):1117-22. (Pubitemid 29469816)
6. Kaplowitz M, Hadlock T, Levine R. A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2004;68(1):94-101. (Pubitemid 38750629)
7. Shakeshaft A, Bowman J, Sanson-Fisher R. Community-based drug and alcohol counselling: who attends and why? Drug Alcohol Rev. 2002;21:153-62.
8. Petrie D, Doran C, Shakeshaft A, Sanson-Fisher R. The relationship between alcohol consumption and self reported health status using the EQ5D. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:1717-26.
9. Stockwell T, Heale P, Chikritzhs T, Dietze P, Catalano P. How much alcohol is drunk in Australia in excess of the new Australian alcohol guidelines? Med J Aust. 2002;176(2):91.
10. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Ann Arbor (MI): AAPOR; 2008. p. 34-8.
11. Hawley K, Cook J, Jensen-Doss A. Do noncontingent incentives increase survey response rates among mental health providers? A randomized trial comparison. Admin Policy Ment Health. 2009;36:343-8.