Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2001
Effect of paper quality on the response rate to a postal survey: a randomised controlled trial. ISRCTN 32032031.
Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey.British journal of cancer · 2012Pooled it
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Do incentives, reminders or reduced burden improve healthcare professional response rates in postal questionnaires? two randomised controlled trials.BMC health services research · 2012Trial
- Effect of prize draw incentive on the response rate to a postal survey of obstetricians and gynaecologists: a randomised controlled trial. [ISRCTN32823119].BMC health services research · 2004Trial
- Factors Affecting Acceptance and Intention to Receive Pandemic Influenza A H1N1 Vaccine among Primary School Children: A Cross-Sectional Study in Birmingham, UK.Influenza research and treatment · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResponse rates to surveys are declining and this threatens the validity and generalisability of their findings. We wanted to determine whether paper quality influences the response rate to postal surveys
methodsA postal questionnaire was sent to all members of the British Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE). Recipients were randomised to receiving the questionnaire printed on standard quality paper or high quality paper.
resultsThe response rate for the recipients of high quality paper was 43/195 (22%) and 57/194 (29%) for standard quality paper (relative rate of response 0.75, 95% CI 0.33-1.05, p = 0.1
conclusionThe use of high quality paper did not increase response rates to a questionnaire survey of gynaecologists affiliated to an endoscopic society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.