Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26450702›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Participation rates, response bias and response behaviours in the community survey of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study (SwiSCI).

Christine Fekete, Wolfgang Segerer, Armin Gemperli, Martin W G Brinkhof, SwiSCI Study Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christine FeketeSwiss Paraplegic Research, Guido A. Zäch Strasse 4, 6207, Nottwil, Switzerland. christine.fekete@paraplegie.ch.
Wolfgang SegererSwiss Paraplegic Research, Guido A. Zäch Strasse 4, 6207, Nottwil, Switzerland. wolfgang.segerer@paraplegie.ch.
Armin GemperliSwiss Paraplegic Research, Guido A. Zäch Strasse 4, 6207, Nottwil, Switzerland. armin.gemperli@paraplegie.ch.
Martin W G BrinkhofSwiss Paraplegic Research, Guido A. Zäch Strasse 4, 6207, Nottwil, Switzerland. martin.brinkhof@paraplegie.ch.
SwiSCI Study Group
University of Lucerne · CHSwiss Paraplegic Research · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurveying persons with disabilities is challenging, as targeted subjects may experience specific barriers to survey participation. Here we report on participation rates and response behaviour in a community survey of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) in Switzerland. The cross-sectional survey was implemented as part of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study (SwiSCI) and represents the largest population-based SCI survey in Europe including nearly 2000 persons. Design features to enhance participation rates included the division of the questionnaire volume over three successive modules; recurrent and mixed-mode reminding of non-responders; and mixed-mode options for response.

methodsWe describe participation rates of the SwiSCI community survey (absolute and cumulative cooperation, contact, response, and attrition rates) and report on response rates in relation to recruitment efforts. Potential non-response bias and the association between responders' characteristics and response behaviour (response speed: reminding until participation; response mode: paper-pencil vs. online completion) were assessed using regression modelling.

resultsOver the successive modules, absolute response rates were 61.1, 80.6 and 87.3% which resulted in cumulative response rates of 49.3 and 42.6% for the second and third modules. Written reminders effectively increased response rates, with the first reminder showing the largest impact. Telephone reminders, partly with direct telephone interviewing, enhanced response rate to the first module, but were essentially redundant in subsequent modules. Non-response to the main module was related to current age, membership of Swiss Paraplegic Association (SPA) and time since injury, but not to gender, lesion level and preferred language of response. Response speed increased with household income, but was not associated to other sociodemographic factors, lesion characteristics or health indicators. We found significant associations between online completion and male gender, younger age, higher education, higher income, SPA membership, tetraplegia, longer time since injury, higher quality of life, and more participation restrictions.

conclusionIn this sample with little non-response bias, recurrent and mixed-mode reminding and mixed-mode options for response were key features of optimizing survey design.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionResearch DesignSpinal Cord InjuriesSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID26450702
PMCPMC4599658
OpenAlexW1860493505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.