4.5 Article

The effect of multiple reminders on response patterns in a Danish health survey

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 156-161

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cku057

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark
  2. Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Reminders are routinely applied in surveys to increase response rates and reduce the possibility of bias. This study examines the effect of multiple reminders on the response rate, non-response bias, prevalence estimates and exposure-outcome relations in a national self-administered health survey. Methods: Data derive from the Danish National Health Survey 2010, in which 298 550 individuals (16 years of age or older) were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey using a mixed-mode approach (paper and web questionnaires). At least two reminders were sent to non-respondents, and 177 639 individuals completed the questionnaire (59.5%). Response patterns were compared between four groups of individuals (first mailing respondents, second mailing respondents, third mailing respondents and non-respondents). Results: Multiple reminders led to an increase in response rate from 36.7 to 59.5%; however, the inclusion of second and third mailing respondents did not change the overall characteristics of respondents compared with non-respondents. Furthermore, only small changes in prevalence estimates and exposure-outcome relationships were observed when including second and third mailing respondents compared with only first mailing respondents. Conclusions: Multiple reminders were an effective way to increase the response rate in a national Danish health survey. However, when differences do exist between respondents and non-respondents, the results suggest that second and third mailings are unlikely to eliminate these differences. Overall, multiple reminders seemed to have only minor effect on response patterns and study conclusions in the present study.

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

4.5
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