Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31288751›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2019

Means of increasing response rates in a Norwegian dietary survey among infants - results from a pseudo-randomized pilot study.

Jannicke Borch Myhre, Lene Frost Andersen, Kristin Holvik, Helene Astrup, Anne Lene Kristiansen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Jannicke Borch MyhreDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1046, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway. j.b.myhre@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0003-0797-8522
Lene Frost AndersenDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1046, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin HolvikDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Aging, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 222, Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
Helene AstrupDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1046, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Anne Lene KristiansenDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, PO Box 1046, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostal surveys are widely used in scientific studies, including dietary surveys, but few studies about methods to increase participation in national dietary surveys are published. In the present study we compared response rates in a pilot study to a national dietary survey among infants using two different incentives (gift certificate or lottery), personalization in the form of handwritten name and address vs. a printed label and mode of sending out invitations (e-mail or postal invitation).

methodsIn this parallel-design pseudo-randomized pilot trial, a nationally representative sample of 698 mothers of infants aged 6 and 12 months was drawn from the Norwegian National Registry and invited to complete a food frequency questionnaire about their infant's diet. One half of the mothers of 6 month olds were randomized by alternation to the lottery group (n = 198) and offered to participate in a lottery of two prizes (500 EUR and 1000 EUR). The other half (n = 200) was offered a gift certificate (50 EUR) upon completion of the questionnaire. Each incentive group was randomized by alternation to receiving an invitation with handwritten name and address or a printed label. For the mothers of infants aged 12 months (n = 300), 150 mothers received an e-mail invitation and 150 mothers received a postal invitation. Logistic regression was used for testing differences between the groups.

resultsThe response rate was significantly higher (p = 0.028) in the gift certificate group (72%) than in the lottery group (62%). No difference was seen between those receiving an invitation with a handwritten name and address (68%) compared to a printed label (66%, p = 0.72). A somewhat higher response rate was seen when using the postal (50%) compared to the e-mail invitation (43%, p = 0.25).

conclusionsIn this pseudo-randomized parallel-design trial of women participating in a national dietary survey among infants, the response rate was higher when offered a gift certificate than when participating in a lottery. Handwritten name and address did not affect participation compared to a printed label. Only a moderate difference was seen between the postal and e-mail invitation. Others conducting similar methodological studies are encouraged to publish their results to expand the knowledge basis in this area.

Indexed as

Diet SurveysMothersCorrespondence as TopicElectronic MailFemaleHumansInfantMaleMotivationNorwayPilot ProjectsPostal ServiceRegistriesToken Economy“Dietary survey”“E-mail invitation”“handwritten name and address”“Incentive”“Lottery”“Monetary incentive”“Personalization”“Postal invitation”“Printed label”“Response rate”

Identifiers

PMID31288751
PMCPMC6617587

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.