Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27087827›Full record

ArticleEmerging themes in epidemiology2016

Maximising follow-up participation rates in a large scale 45 and Up Study in Australia.

Adrian Bauman, Philayrath Phongsavan, Alison Cowle, Emily Banks, Louisa Jorm, Kris Rogers, Bin Jalaludin, Anne Grunseit

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emerging themes in epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Adrian BaumanPrevention Research Collaboration, Level 6 Charles Perkins Centre D17, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
Philayrath PhongsavanPrevention Research Collaboration, Level 6 Charles Perkins Centre D17, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
Alison CowleSax Institute, University of Technology, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW 1240 Australia.
Emily BanksNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Building 62, Acton, ACT 0200 Australia.
Louisa JormCentre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia.
Kris RogersThe George Institute for Global Health, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050 Australia.
Bin JalaludinSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia ; Centre for Research, Evidence Management and Surveillance, Locked Bag 7279, Liverpool, NSW 1871 Australia.
Anne GrunseitPrevention Research Collaboration, Level 6 Charles Perkins Centre D17, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe issue of poor response rates to population surveys has existed for some decades, but few studies have explored methods to improve the response rate in follow-up population cohort studies.

methodsA sample of 100,000 adults from the 45 and Up Study, a large population cohort in Australia, were followed up 3.5 years after the baseline cohort was assembled. A pilot mail-out of 5000 surveys produced a response rate of only 41.7 %. This study tested methods of enhancing response rate, with three groups of 1000 each allocated to (1) receiving an advance notice postcard followed by a questionnaire, (2) receiving a questionnaire and then follow-up reminder letter, and (3) both these strategies.

resultsThe enhanced strategies all produced an improved response rate compared to the pilot, with a resulting mean response rate of 53.7 %. Highest response was found when both the postcard and questionnaire reminder were used (56.4 %) but this was only significantly higher when compared to postcard alone (50.5 %) but not reminder alone (54.1 %). The combined approach was used for recruitment among the remaining 92,000 participants, with a resultant further increased response rate of 61.6 %.

conclusionsSurvey prompting with a postcard and a reminder follow-up questionnaire, applied separately or combined can enhance follow-up rates in large scale survey-based epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

Epidemiological studiesFollow-upRecruitment strategiesResponse rates

Identifiers

PMID27087827
PMCPMC4832455

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.