Top

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Research article

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

Authors: Bridget J Kelly, Taressa K Fraze, Robert C Hornik

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2010

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.

Available only for authorised users

Brick JM, Dipko S, Presser S, Tucker C, Yuan Y: Non-response bias in a dual frame sample of cell and landline numbers. Public Opin Q. 2006, 70: 780-3. 10.1093/poq/nfl031.CrossRef

Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E: Changes in telephone survey non-response over the past quarter century. Public Opin Q. 2005, 69: 87-98. 10.1093/poq/nfi002.CrossRef

Groves RM, Couper MP, Presser S, Nelson : Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. Public Opin Q. 2006, 70: 720-36. 10.1093/poq/nfl036.CrossRef

Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P: Gauging the impact of growing non-response on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin Q. 2006, 70: 759-79. 10.1093/poq/nfl035.CrossRef

Tuckel P, O'Neill H: The vanishing respondent in telephone surveys. J Advert Res. 2002, 42: 26-48.CrossRef

Shannon DM, Bradshaw CC: A comparison of response rate, response time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys. Journal of Exper Ed. 2002, 70: 179-192. 10.1080/00220970209599505.CrossRef

Couper MP: Web Surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q. 2000, 64: 464-494. 10.1086/318641.CrossRefPubMed

Dickinson A, Newell AF, Smith MJ, Hill RL: Introducing the Internet to the over-60s: Developing an email system for older novice computer users. Interact Comput. 2005, 17: 621-642. 10.1016/j.intcom.2005.09.003.CrossRef

Lam JCY, Lee MKO: Digital inclusiveness--Longitudinal study of Internet adoption by older adults. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2006, 22: 177-206. 10.2753/MIS0742-1222220407.CrossRef

10.

Dillman DA, Phelps G, Tortorab R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J: Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research. 2001, 38: 1-18. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007.CrossRef

11.

Kempf AM, Remington PL: New challenges for telephone survey research in the twenty-first century. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007, 28: 113-26. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144059.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Link MW, Battaglia MP, Frankel MR, Osborn L, Mokdad AH: Address-based versus random-digit-dial surveys: comparison of key health and risk indicators. Am J Epidemiol. 2006, 164: 1019-1025. 10.1093/aje/kwj310.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Link MW, Mokdad AH, Kulp D, Hyon A: Has the national do not call registry helped or hurt state-level response rates?. Public Opin Q. 2005, 70: 794-809. 10.1093/poq/nfl030.CrossRef

14.

McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE: Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results form a national survey. Medical Care. 1994, 32: 551-567. 10.1097/00005650-199406000-00002.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Dillman DA: Mail and Internet Surveys: The tailored design method. 2000, New York, NY: Wiley

16.

Dillman DA, Sinclair MD, Clark JR: Effects of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opin Q. 1993, 57: 289-304. 10.1086/269376.CrossRef

17.

Fox RJ, Crask MR, Kim J: Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opin Q. 1998, 52: 467-491. 10.1086/269125.CrossRef

18.

James JM, Bolstein R: The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailing on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opin Q. 1990, 54: 346-361. 10.1086/269211.CrossRef

19.

Hawes JM, Crittenden VL, Crittenden WF: The effects of personalization, source and offer on mail survey response rate and speed. Akron Bus Econ Rev. 1987, 18: 54-63.

20.

Erwin WJ: Improving mail survey response rates through the use of a monetary incentive. J Mental Health Counseling. 2002, 24: 247-55.

21.

Yammarino FJ, Skinner SJ, Childers TL: Understanding mail survey response behavior: A meta-analysis. Public Opin Q. 1991, 55: 613-619. 10.1086/269284.CrossRef

22.

Edwards P, Cooper R, Roberts I, Frost C: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of monetary incentives and response to mailed questionnaires. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005, 59: 987-999. 10.1136/jech.2005.034397.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Beebe TJ, Davern ME, McAlpine DD, Call KT, Rockwood TH: Increasing response rates in a survey of Medicaid enrollees: the effect of a prepaid monetary incentive and mixed modes (mail and telephone). Med Care. 2005, 43: 411-414. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000156858.81146.0e.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Trussell N, Lavrakas PJ: The influence of incremental increases in token cash incentives on mail survey response: Is there an optimal amount?. Public Opin Q. 2004, 68: 349-67. 10.1093/poq/nfh022.CrossRef

25.

King KA, Pealer LN, Bernard AL: Increasing response rates to mail questionnaires: A review of inducement strategies. Am J of Health Educ. 2001, 32: 4-15.CrossRef

26.

Warriner K, Goyder J, Gjertsen H, Hohner P, McSpurren K: Charities, no; lotteries, no; cash, yes: Main effects and interactions in a Canadian incentives experiment. Public Opin Q. 1996, 60: 542-562. 10.1086/297772.CrossRef

27.

Jepsen C, Asch D, Hershey J, Ubel P: In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 58: 103-105. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.004.CrossRef

28.

Dillman DA: Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. 1978, New York, NY: Wiley and Sons

29.

Deutskens E, Ruyter KD, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P: Response rate and response quality of Internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing Letters. 2004, 15: 21-10.1023/B:MARK.0000021968.86465.00.CrossRef

30.

Jacoby A: Possible factors affecting response to postal questionnaires: Findings from a study of general practitioner services. J Public Health. 1990, 12: 131-135.

31.

Mond JM, Rodgers B, Hay PJ, Owen C, Beumont PJ: Mode of delivery, but not questionnaire length, affected response in an epidemiological study of eating-disordered behavior. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57: 1167-71. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.017.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sitzia J, Wood N: Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998, 10: 311-317. 10.1093/intqhc/10.4.311.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kalantar JS, Talley NJ: The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomized study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999, 52: 1117-22. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00051-7.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Eaker S, Bergström R, Bergström A, Adami H-O, Nyren O: Response Rate to Mailed Epidemiologic Questionnaires: A Population-based Randomized Trial of Variations in Design and Mailing Routines. Am J Epidemiol. 1998, 147: 74-82.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGiuseppe C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I: Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. Br Med J. 2002, 18: 324-

36.

Edwards P, Roberts I, Sandercock P, Frost C: Follow-up by mail in clinical trials: Does questionnaire length matter?. Controlled Clin Trials. 2004, 25: 31-52. 10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.013.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Smith T, Stein KD, Mehta CC, Kaw C, Kepner J, Stafford J, Baker F: The rationale, design and implementation of the American Cancer Society's Studies of cancer survivors. Cancer. 2007, 190: 1-12. 10.1002/cncr.22387.CrossRef

38.

Goldstein BI, Levitt AJ: A gender-focused perspective on health service utilization in comorbid bipolar I disorder and alcohol use disorders: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. J Clin Psychol. 2006, 67: 925-932.

39.

Redondo-Sendino A, Guallar-Castillon P, Banegas J, Rodriguez-Artalejo F: Gender differences in the utilization of health-care services among the older adult population of Spain. BMC Public Health. 2006, 6: 155-10.1186/1471-2458-6-155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Ries L, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Clegg L, Horner MJ, Howlader N, Eisner MP, Reichman M, Edwards BK, eds: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004. [http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/]

41.

Martin E, Abreu D, Winters F: Money and motive: Effects of incentives on panel attrition in the Survey of Income and Program Participation. J Off Stat. 2001, 17: 267-284.

42.

Singer E, Gebler N, Trivellore R, Van Hoewyk J, McGonagle K: The effect of incentives in interviewer-mediated surveys. J Off Stat. 1999, 15: 217-230.

43.

Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 2006, American Association for Public Opinion Research, [http://www.aapor.org/standards]4

44.

Compressed Mortality File 1999-2004. CDC WONDER On-line Database, compiled from Compressed Mortality File 1999-2004 Series 20 No. 2J, 2007. [http://wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd10.html]

45.

Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA: Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epid. 1997, 50: 1129-1136. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1.CrossRef

46.

Guidry JJ, Aday L, Zhang D, Winn RJ: Cost considerations as potential barriers to cancer treatment. Cancer Pract. 1998, 6: 182-187. 10.1046/j.1523-5394.1998.006003182.x.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Baruch Y: Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Hum Relat. 1999, 52: 421-438.

48.

Jansen SJ, Otten W, Baas-Thijssen MC, van de Velde CJ, Nortier JW, Stiggelbout AM: Explaining differences in attitude toward adjuvant chemotherapy between experienced and inexperienced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 20: 6623-6630. 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.171.CrossRef

49.

Groves RM, Singer E, Corning A: Leverage-salience theory of survey participation. Pub Op Quarterly. 2000, 64: 299-308. 10.1086/317990.CrossRef

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/10/65/prepub

Title: 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
Authors: Bridget J Kelly
Taressa K Fraze
Robert C Hornik
Publication date: 01-12-2010
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-65

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Measurement of nicotine withdrawal symptoms: linguistic validation of the Wisconsin Smoking Withdrawal Scale (WSWS) in Malay

Balancing high accrual and ethical recruitment in paediatric oncology: a qualitative study of the 'look and feel' of clinical trial discussions

Comparison of participants and non-participants to the ORISCAV-LUX population-based study on cardiovascular risk factors in Luxembourg

The Manchester Color Wheel: development of a novel way of identifying color choice and its validation in healthy, anxious and depressed individuals

Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence

Measures and models for causal inference in cross-sectional studies: arguments for the appropriateness of the prevalence odds ratio and related logistic regression