27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Response rates to a mailed survey of a representative sample of cancer patients randomly drawn from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry: a randomized trial of incentive and length effects

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 2
      BMC Medical Research Methodology
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In recent years, response rates to telephone surveys have declined. Online surveys may miss many older and poorer adults. Mailed surveys may have promise in securing higher response rates.

          Methods

          In a pilot study, 1200 breast, prostate and colon patients, randomly selected from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, were sent surveys in the mail. Incentive amount ($3 vs. $5) and length of the survey (10 pages vs. 16 pages) were randomly assigned.

          Results

          Overall, there was a high response rate (AAPOR RR4 = 64%). Neither the amount of the incentive, nor the length of the survey affected the response rate significantly. Colon cancer surveys were returned at a significantly lower rate (RR4 = 54%), than breast or prostate surveys (RR4 = 71%, and RR4 = 67%, respectively; p < .001 for both comparisons). There were no significant interactions among cancer type, length of survey and incentive amount in their effects on response likelihood.

          Conclusion

          Mailed surveys may provide a suitable alternative option for survey-based research with cancer patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey.

              Many health status surveys have been designed for mail, telephone, or in-person administration. However, with rare exception, investigators have not studied the effect the survey mode of administration has on the way respondents assess their health and other important parameters (such as response rates, nonresponse bias, and data quality), which can affect the generalizability of results. Using a national sampling frame of noninstitutionalized adults from the General Social Survey, we randomly assigned adults to a mail survey (80%) or a computer-assisted telephone survey (20%). The surveys were designed to provide national norms for the SF-36 Health Survey. Total data collection costs per case for the telephone survey ($47.86) were 77% higher than that for the mail survey ($27.07). A significantly higher response rate was achieved among respondents randomly assigned to the mail (79.2%) than telephone survey (68.9%). Nonresponse bias was evident in both modes but, with the exception of age, was not differential between modes. The rate of missing responses was higher for mail than telephone respondents (1.59 vs. 0.49 missing items). Health ratings based on the SF-36 scales were less favorable, and reports of chronic conditions were more frequent, for mail than telephone respondents. Results are discussed in light of the trade-offs involved in choosing a survey methodology for health status assessment applications. Norms for mail and telephone versions of the SF-36 survey are provided for use in interpreting individual and group scores.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2288
                2010
                14 July 2010
                : 10
                : 65
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Triangle Institute, Washington, DC, USA
                [2 ]Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
                Article
                1471-2288-10-65
                10.1186/1471-2288-10-65
                2912919
                20630101
                ce4d670a-c5f2-4251-b541-b3c1d20f4ae7
                Copyright ©2010 Kelly et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 9 August 2009
                : 14 July 2010
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article