Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22893795›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of psychotraumatology2010

50 ways to trace your veteran: increasing response rates can be cheap and effective.

Nicola Townsend Fear, Lauren Van Staden, Amy Iversen, John Hall, Simon Wessely

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of psychotraumatology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. European Journal of Psychotraumatology: One year later….European journal of psychotraumatology · 2011
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicola Townsend FearAcademic Centre for Defence Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK.
Lauren Van Staden
Amy Iversen
John Hall
Simon Wessely

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundwhile low response rates need not introduce bias into research, having a lower percentage of responders does increase the potential for this to occur. This is of particular concern given the decline that has been occurring in response rates since the 1950s. However, there are various methods that can be incorporated into the study design, which can assist in increasing levels of participation.

objectiveTo outline the methods used by the King's Centre for Military Health Research (KCMHR) when conducting a recent telephone survey of serving and ex-Service military personnel.

designUsing participants who had already taken part in a questionnaire-based study on the health effects of serving in the UK Armed Forces (n=10,272), a subsample was selected for an in-depth telephone interview-based follow-up study. The subsample consisted of 1,105 participants, selected on the basis of their mental health status. An adjusted response rate of 76% was achieved (n=821).

resultsVarious methods of contact were used in this study to ensure an adequate response rate was achieved.

conclusionsSimple research strategies increase response rates and are likely to reduce bias. Use of multiple simultaneous tracing methods and customisation of the approach to the target population increases rapport between participants, ensuring that those who take part feel valued as members of the study. In the current climate of decreasing participation in studies, research teams need to engage with their study population and devise innovative strategies to keep participants involved in the research being undertaken.

Indexed as

biasmethodologyResponse ratestelephone surveysUK Armed Forces

Identifiers

PMID22893795
PMCPMC3401995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.