4.7 Article

Assessing research outcomes by postal questionnaire with telephone follow-up

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 1065-1069

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/29.6.1065

关键词

research outcomes; bias; postal questionnaires; stroke therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Face-to-face assessment of research outcomes is expensive and may introduce bias. Postal questionnaires offer a cheaper alternative which avoids observer bias, but non-response and incomplete response reduce the effective sample size and may be equally serious sources of bias. This study examines the extent and potential effects of missing data in the postal collection of outcomes for a large rehabilitation trial. Methods Questionnaires containing a number of established scales were posted to participants in a trial of occupational therapy after stroke. Response was maximized by telephone and postal reminders, and incomplete questionnaires were followed up by telephone. Scale scores obtained by imputing values to questionnaire items missing on return were compared with those achieved by telephone follow-up. Findings Response to the initial posting was 60%, rising to 85% after reminders. Participants receiving the experimental treatment were more likely to respond without a reminder. There were no significant differences on any known factors between eventual responders and non-responders. Of the questionnaires, 43% were incomplete on return: partial responders were significantly different to complete responders on baseline disability and home circumstances. Of the incomplete questionnaires, 71% were resolved by telephone follow-up. In these, the scale scores achieved by telephone were generally higher than those derived by conventional imputation. Conclusion Postal outcome assessment achieved a good response rate, but considerable effort was needed to minimize non-response and incomplete response, both of which could have been serious sources of bias.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据