ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Impact of envelope teaser on mail and web research survey response rates and representation.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA high response rate is an often-used measure of survey quality. Research is mixed on the effectiveness of a “teaser message” to increase response rate, with at least one study showing a significantly > 10% higher response rate with a teaser compared to control and others showing no significant differences.
methodsAs part of a larger study of care coordination, 6813 individuals were mailed a push-to-web survey invitation letter, half randomized to receive an envelope with the teaser “We need your help!” stamped on the outside of the envelope in red ink, and half without. A second mailing with a paper survey was sent to initial non-responders with the teaser condition carried through. Survey response rates were calculated using AAPOR Response Rate 6 and differences between teaser and control respondents were compared using Chi-square tests. Impact of teaser on response rate within patient subgroups was calculated using the same analytic approach applied to the overall sample.
resultsIn total, 2795 individuals completed the survey (41% response rate). After the initial mailing containing the push-to-web invitation, the response rate was 13% for both the teaser and control groups (p = 0.73). After the second mailing, there were again no significant differences in response rate (teaser 34%, control 36%, p = 0.07). The response rate was lower among white (4% lower, p = 0.01), female (3% lower, p = 0.02), urban individuals (2% lower, p = 0.04), and those over age 65 (4% lower, p = 0.02) in the teaser group than control group.
conclusionsWhile the existing literature is inconclusive and nuanced, our findings align with standard survey methods which recommend against using colored and catchy text on survey envelopes. Based on these findings, we do not recommend the use of an envelope teaser message.
trial registrationAll methods were reviewed and approved, with waiver of written consent, by the HealthPartners Institutional Review Board (#A19-119, 07/20/2022).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.