Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2006

Open Access 01-12-2006 | Research article

Personally addressed hand-signed letters increase questionnaire response: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Authors: Pippa Scott, Phil Edwards

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Postal questionnaires are commonly used to collect data for health studies, but non-response reduces study sample sizes and can introduce bias. Finding ways to increase the proportion of questionnaires returned would improve research quality. We sought to quantify the effect on response when researchers address participants personally by name on letters that accompany questionnaires.

Methods

All randomised controlled trials in a published systematic review that evaluated the effect on response of including participants' names on letters that accompany questionnaires were included. Odds ratios for response were pooled in a random effects meta-analysis and evidence for changes in effects over time was assessed using random effects meta-regression.

Results

Fourteen randomised controlled trials were included covering a wide range of topics. Most topics were unrelated to health or social care. The odds of response when including participants' names on letters were increased by one-fifth (pooled OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34; p = 0.015). When participants' names and hand-written signatures were used in combination, the effect was a more substantial increase in response (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.66; p < 0.001), corresponding to an absolute increase in the proportion of questionnaires returned of between 4% and 10%, depending on the baseline response rate. There was no evidence that the magnitude of these effects had declined over time.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis of the best available evidence indicates that researchers using postal questionnaires can increase response by addressing participants by name on cover letters. The effect appears to be enhanced by including hand-written signatures.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R: Response rates and their maximisation. Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 1995, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 21: 294-321. Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R: Response rates and their maximisation. Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 1995, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 21: 294-321.
2.
go back to reference Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R: Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. 2003, 4 Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R: Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. 2003, 4
3.
go back to reference McKenzie-McHarg K, Tully L, Gates S, Ayers S, Brocklehurst P: Effect on survey response rate of hand-written versus printed signature on a covering letter: randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research. 2005, 5: 52-10.1186/1472-6963-5-52.CrossRef McKenzie-McHarg K, Tully L, Gates S, Ayers S, Brocklehurst P: Effect on survey response rate of hand-written versus printed signature on a covering letter: randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research. 2005, 5: 52-10.1186/1472-6963-5-52.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-88. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.CrossRef DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-88. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D: Measuring inconsistencies in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal. 2003, 327: 557-560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRef Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D: Measuring inconsistencies in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal. 2003, 327: 557-560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-34.CrossRef Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-34.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Roberts RE, McCrory OF, Forthofer RN: Further evidence on using a deadline to stimulate responses to a mail survey. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1978, 42: 407-410. 10.1086/268464.CrossRef Roberts RE, McCrory OF, Forthofer RN: Further evidence on using a deadline to stimulate responses to a mail survey. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1978, 42: 407-410. 10.1086/268464.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wright SJ: Mail survey response rates: A test of four techniques designed to increase response rates and a discussion of the associated cost considerations. Student Research Report. 1984, Massey University, Department of Marketing Wright SJ: Mail survey response rates: A test of four techniques designed to increase response rates and a discussion of the associated cost considerations. Student Research Report. 1984, Massey University, Department of Marketing
9.
go back to reference Childers TL, Skinner SJ: Theoretical and empirical issues in the identification of survey respondents. Journal of the Market Research Society. 1985, 27 (1): 39-53. Childers TL, Skinner SJ: Theoretical and empirical issues in the identification of survey respondents. Journal of the Market Research Society. 1985, 27 (1): 39-53.
10.
go back to reference Martin WS, Duncan WJ, Powers TL, Sawyer JC: Costs and benefits of selected response inducement techniques in mail survey research. Journal of Business Research. 1989, 19: 67-79. 10.1016/0148-2963(89)90041-6.CrossRef Martin WS, Duncan WJ, Powers TL, Sawyer JC: Costs and benefits of selected response inducement techniques in mail survey research. Journal of Business Research. 1989, 19: 67-79. 10.1016/0148-2963(89)90041-6.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference White MB, Chambers KM: Type of cover letter and questionnaire color: do they influence the response rate in survey research with marriage and family therapists?. Family Therapy. 1997, 24 (1): 19-24. White MB, Chambers KM: Type of cover letter and questionnaire color: do they influence the response rate in survey research with marriage and family therapists?. Family Therapy. 1997, 24 (1): 19-24.
12.
go back to reference Weilbacher WM, Walsh HR: Mail questionnaires and the personalized letter of transmittal. Marketing Notes. 1952, 16: 331-336.CrossRef Weilbacher WM, Walsh HR: Mail questionnaires and the personalized letter of transmittal. Marketing Notes. 1952, 16: 331-336.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Dillman DA, Frey JH: Contribution of personalization to mail questionnaire response as an element of a previously tested method. J Appl Psychol. 1974, 59 (3): 297-301. 10.1037/h0036534.CrossRef Dillman DA, Frey JH: Contribution of personalization to mail questionnaire response as an element of a previously tested method. J Appl Psychol. 1974, 59 (3): 297-301. 10.1037/h0036534.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Matteson MT: Type of transmittal letter and questionnaire colour as two variables influencing response rates in a mail survey. J Appl Psychol. 1974, 59 (4): 535-536. 10.1037/h0037275.CrossRef Matteson MT: Type of transmittal letter and questionnaire colour as two variables influencing response rates in a mail survey. J Appl Psychol. 1974, 59 (4): 535-536. 10.1037/h0037275.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Kerin RA, Harvey MG: Methodological considerations in corporate mail surveys: a research note. Journal of Business Research. 1976, 4 (3): 277-281. 10.1016/0148-2963(76)90029-1.CrossRef Kerin RA, Harvey MG: Methodological considerations in corporate mail surveys: a research note. Journal of Business Research. 1976, 4 (3): 277-281. 10.1016/0148-2963(76)90029-1.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference King JO: The influence of personalization on mail survey response rates. Arkansas Business Economic Rev. 1978, 11: 15-18. King JO: The influence of personalization on mail survey response rates. Arkansas Business Economic Rev. 1978, 11: 15-18.
17.
go back to reference Worthen BR, Valcarce RW: Relative effectiveness of personalized and form covering letters in initial and follow-up mail surveys. Psychology Reports. 1985, 57: 735-744.CrossRef Worthen BR, Valcarce RW: Relative effectiveness of personalized and form covering letters in initial and follow-up mail surveys. Psychology Reports. 1985, 57: 735-744.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Green KE, Kvidahl RF: Personalization and offers of results: effects on response rates. Journal of Experimental Education. 1989, 57: 263-270.CrossRef Green KE, Kvidahl RF: Personalization and offers of results: effects on response rates. Journal of Experimental Education. 1989, 57: 263-270.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Gitelson RJ, Drogin EB: An experiment on the efficacy of a certified final mailing. Journal of Leisure Research. 1992, 24 (1): 72-78.CrossRef Gitelson RJ, Drogin EB: An experiment on the efficacy of a certified final mailing. Journal of Leisure Research. 1992, 24 (1): 72-78.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Shin E: An experimental study of techniques to improve response rates of mail questionnaire. 1992, Utah State University Shin E: An experimental study of techniques to improve response rates of mail questionnaire. 1992, Utah State University
Metadata
Title
Personally addressed hand-signed letters increase questionnaire response: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Authors
Pippa Scott
Phil Edwards
Publication date
01-12-2006
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2006
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-111

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

BMC Health Services Research 1/2006 Go to the issue