Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32571269›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Increasing questionnaire response: evidence from a nested RCT within a longitudinal birth cohort study.

Michaela Goodwin, Tanya Walsh, William Whittaker, Richard Emsley, Matt Sutton, Martin Tickle, Michael P Kelly, Iain A Pretty

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Michaela GoodwinThe Dental Health Unit, Division of Dentistry, Williams House, University of Manchester, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK. michaela.goodwin@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0375-3118
Tanya WalshThe Dental Health Unit, Division of Dentistry, Williams House, University of Manchester, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK.
William WhittakerDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Richard EmsleyDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crispigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Matt SuttonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Martin TickleThe Dental Health Unit, Division of Dentistry, Williams House, University of Manchester, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK.
Michael P KellyPrimary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Iain A PrettyThe Dental Health Unit, Division of Dentistry, Williams House, University of Manchester, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK.
University of Manchester · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity Dental Hospital of Manchester · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/3000/40Public Health Research Programme 12/3000/40
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh response rates are essential when questionnaires are used within research, as representativeness can affect the validity of studies and the ability to generalise the findings to a wider population. The study aimed to measure the response rate to questionnaires from a large longitudinal epidemiological study and sought to determine if any changes made throughout data collection had a positive impact on the response to questionnaires and addressed any imbalance in response rates by participants' levels of deprivation.

methodsData were taken from a prospective, comparative study, designed to examine the effects of the reintroduction of water fluoridation on children's oral health over a five-year period. Response rates were analysed for the first year of data collection. During this year changes were made to the questionnaire layout and cover letter to attempt to increase response rates. Additionally a nested randomised control trial compared the effect on response rates of three different reminders to complete questionnaires.

resultsData were available for 1824 individuals. Sending the complete questionnaire again to non-responders resulted in the highest level of response (25%). A telephone call to participants was the only method that appeared to address the imbalance in deprivation, with a mean difference in deprivation score of 2.65 (95% CI -15.50 to 10.20) between the responders and non-responders.

conclusionsInitially, low response rates were recorded within this large, longitudinal study giving rise to concerns about non-response bias. Resending the entire questionnaire again was the most effective way of reminding participants to complete the questionnaire. As this is a less labour intensive method than for example, calling participants, more time can then be spent targeting groups who are underrepresented. In order to address these biases, data can be weighted in order to draw conclusions about the population.

Indexed as

Research DesignChildCohort StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesdeprivationnon-response biasquestionnairesRCTresponse rates

Identifiers

PMID32571269
PMCPMC7309972
OpenAlexW3036021040

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.