Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Pre-notification letter type and response rate to a postal survey among women who have recently given birth

Authors: Angela L. Todd, Maree Porter, Jennifer L. Williamson, Jillian A. Patterson, Christine L. Roberts

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Surveys are commonly used in health research to assess patient satisfaction with hospital care. Achieving an adequate response rate, in the face of declining trends over time, threatens the quality and reliability of survey results. This paper evaluates a strategy to increase the response rate in a postal satisfaction survey with women who had recently given birth.

Methods

A sample of 2048 Australian women who had recently given birth at seven maternity units in New South Wales were invited to participate in a postal survey about their recent experiences with maternity care. The study design included a randomised controlled trial that tested two types of pre-notification letter (with or without the option of opting out of the survey). The study also explored the acceptability of a request for consent to link survey data with existing routinely collected health data (omitting the latter data items from the survey reduced survey length and participant burden). This consent was requested of all women.

Results

The survey had an overall response rate of 46 % (913 completed surveys returned, total sample 1989). Women receiving the pre-notification letter with the option of opting out of the survey were more likely to actively decline to participate than women receiving the letter without this option, although the overall numbers of women declining were small (27 versus 12). Letter type was not significantly associated with the return of a completed survey. Among women who completed the survey, 97 % gave consent to link their survey data with existing health data.

Conclusions

The two types of pre-notification letters used in our study did not influence the survey response rate. However, seeking consent for record linkage was highly acceptable to women who completed the survey, and represents an important strategy to add to the arsenal for designing and implementing effective surveys. In addition to aspects of survey design, future research should explore how to more effectively influence personal constructs that contribute to the decision to participate in surveys.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Declercq E, Chalmers B. Mothers’ reports of their maternity experiences in the USA and Canada. J Reprod Inf Psychol. 2008;26:295–308.CrossRef
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Brown S, Bruinsma F. Future directions for Victoria’s public maternity services: is this “what women want”? Aust Health Rev. 2006;30(1):56–64.PubMed
13.
Brown S, Darcy M-A, Bruinsma F. Having a baby in Victoria 1989–2000: continuity and change in the decade following the Victorian Ministerial Review of Birthing Services. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2002;26(3):242–50.CrossRef
14.
Yelland J, Sutherland G, Brown SJ. Postpartum anxiety, depression and social health: findings from a population-based survey of Australian women. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(771):1471–2458.
15.
16.
17.
Brown S, Lumley J. Changing childbirth: lessons from an Australian survey of 1336 women. BJOG. 1998;105(2):143–55.CrossRef
18.
Brown S, Lumley J. Satisfaction with care in labor and birth: a survey of 790 Australian women. Birth. 1994;21(1):4–13.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Fuchs M, Bossert D, Stukowski S. Response rate and nonresponse bias - impact of the number of contact attempts on data quality in the European Social Survey. BSM. 2013;117(1):26–45.
20.
Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opin Q. 2005;69(1):87–98.CrossRef
21.
De Leeuw E, De Heer W. Trends in household survey nonresponse: a longitudinal and international comparison. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA, editors. Survey Nonresponse. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. p. 41–54.
22.
Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. AEP. 2007;17(9):643–53.PubMed
23.
Healey B, Gendall P. Understanding mail survey non-contact: an examination of misaddressed survey invitation returns. AJMSR. 2005;13(1):37–45.
24.
Basic E, Rendtel U. Assessing the bias due to non-coverage of residential movers in the German Microcensus Panel: an evaluation using data from the Socio-Economic Panel. AStA. 2007;91(3):311–34.CrossRef
25.
Plewis I, Ketende SC, Joshi H, Hughes G. The contribution of residential mobility to sample loss in a birth cohort study: evidence from the first two waves of the UK Millennium Cohort Study. J Off Stat. 2008;24(3):365–85.
26.
27.
Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2009;(Issue 3):Art No: MR000008.
28.
Stenhammar C, Bokstrom P, Edlund B, Sarkadi A. Using different approaches to conducting postal questionnaires affected response rates and cost-efficiency. JCE. 2011;64(10):1137–43.PubMed
29.
Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;324(7347):1183.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Mindell J, Biddulph JP, Hirani V, Stamatakis E, Craig R, Nunn S, et al. Cohort profile: The Health Survey for England. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(6):1585–93.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Gray L, Batty GD, Craig P, Stewart C, Whyte B, Finlayson A, et al. Cohort profile: The Scottish Health Surveys Cohort: linkage of study participants to routinely collected records for mortality, hospital discharge, cancer and offspring birth characteristics in three nationwide studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(2):345–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Lahelma E, Aittomäki A, Laaksonen M, Lallukka T, Martikainen P, Piha K, et al. Cohort profile: The Helsinki Health Study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(3):722–30.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Klassen AF, Lee SK, Barer M, Raina P. Linking survey data with administrative health information: characteristics associated with consent from a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit follow-up study. Can J Public Health. 2005;96(2):151–4.PubMed
34.
Tate AR, Calderwood L, Dezateux C, Joshi H, The Millennium Cohort Study Child Health Group. Mother’s consent to linkage of survey data with her child’s birth records in a multi-ethnic national cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(2):294–8.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Young AF, Dobson AJ, Byles JE. Health services research using linked records: who consents and what is the gain? Aust NZ J Pub Health. 2001;25(5):417–20.CrossRef
36.
Todd AL, Aitken CA, Boyd J, Porter M. Testing a health research instrument to develop a state-wide survey on maternity care. Public Health Res Pract. 2016;25(5):e2551660.
37.
38.
Taylor LK, Pym M, Bajuk B, Sutton L, Travis S, Banks C. Validation study: NSW Midwives Data Collection. NSW Pub Health Bull. 1998;2000 Suppl 1:97–9.
39.
Roberts CL, Bell JC, Ford JB, Morris JM. Monitoring the quality of maternity care: how well are labour and delivery events reported in population health data? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009;23(2):144–52.CrossRefPubMed
40.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 8th edition, 2015. AAPOR.
41.
42.
Mohsin M, Bauman AE, Forero R. Socioeconomic correlates and trends in smoking in pregnancy in New South Wales, Australia. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;65(8):727–32.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Brown S, Lumley J. The 1993 Survey of Recent Mothers: issues in design, analysis and influencing policy. Int J Qual Health Care. 1997;9:265–77.PubMed
44.
Halbesleben JRB, Whitman MV. Evaluating survey quality in health services research: a decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(3):913–30.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Groves RM, Couper MP, Presser S, Singer E, Tourangeau R, Acosta GP, et al. Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. Public Opin Q. 2006;70(5):720–36.CrossRef
46.
Raynes-Greenow CH, Nassar N, Roberts CL. Residential mobility in a cohort of primiparous women during pregnancy and post-partum. Aust N Z J Pub Health. 2008;32(2):131–4.CrossRef
47.
Porter SR. Raising response rates: what works? New Dir Inst Res. 2004;2004(121):5–21.
48.
Helgeson JG, Voss KE, Terpening WD. Determinants of mail-survey response: survey design factors and respondent factors. Psychol Market. 2002;19(3):303–28.CrossRef
49.
Haunberger S. To participate or not to participate: decision processes related to survey non-response. BMS. 2011;109(1):39–55.
50.
Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–36.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Wensing M, Mainz J, Kramme O, Jung HP, Ribacke M. Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(6):585–7.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Gasquet I, Falissard B, Ravaud P. Impact of reminders and method of questionnaire distribution on patient response to mail-back satisfaction survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(11):1174–80.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Christensen AI, Ekholm O, Kristensen PL, Laren FB, Vinding AL, Glümer C, et al. The effect of mulitple reminders on response patterns in a Danish health survey. Eur J Pub Health. 2014;25(1):156–61.
Metadata
Title
Pre-notification letter type and response rate to a postal survey among women who have recently given birth
Authors
Angela L. Todd
Maree Porter
Jennifer L. Williamson
Jillian A. Patterson
Christine L. Roberts
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0097-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research Article

The extension of total gain (TG) statistic in survival models: properties and applications

Research article

Early results from a multi-component French public-private partnership initiative to improve participation in clinical research – CeNGEPS: a prospective before-after study

Erratum

Erratum to: Novel citation-based search method for scientific literature: application to meta-analyses

Research article

Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation of an automated multi-country patient count cohort system

Debate

Clinical research and medical care: towards effective and complete integration

Research article

Optimal cut-point definition in biomarkers: the case of censored failure time outcome