To send or not to send: weighing the costs and benefits of mailing an advance letter to participants before a telephone survey

Christina Schell, Alexandra Godinho, Vladyslav Kushnir, John A Cunningham, Christina Schell, Alexandra Godinho, Vladyslav Kushnir, John A Cunningham

Abstract

Objective: A letter was mailed to half the participants (Letter = 137; No Letter = 138) of a 5-year follow-up survey regarding smoking cessation before attempting contact for a telephone interview. The primary outcome was the number of completed surveys per group (response rate). Secondary analyses of the number of telephone calls placed and a cost analysis were performed.

Results: No conclusive effect was found on the response rates per group (59.1% Letter, 50.0% No Letter; p = 0.147). Additionally, a logistic regression, controlling for demographics, revealed that there was no direct effect of sending the letter on response rate (p = 0.369). Non-parametric analysis showed significantly fewer calls (U = 7962.5, z = - 2.274, p < 0.05 two-tailed) and significantly lower costs (U = 11112.00, z = 2.521, p < 0.05 two-tailed) in reaching participants in the Letter group. Mailing an advance letter to participants did not appear to effect response rates between the groups, even when controlling for demographics. However, further analysis examining the number of call attempts and the costs per group revealed the letter may have had other effects. These findings suggest that additional analyses may be merited when evaluating the effectiveness of methods to increase participation, such as an advance letter, especially in cases where the literature largely supports its effectual use. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03097445. Registered 31 March 2017.

Keywords: Advance letter; Cost-analysis; Pre-notification; Smokers; Smoking cessation; Telephone survey.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of call attempts between the Letter and No Letter groups

References

    1. Dillman DA. Moving survey methodology forward in our rapidly changing world: a commentary. J Rural Soc Sci. 2016;31:160–174.
    1. Kalton G. Development in survey research in the past 25 years. Survey Methodol. 2000;26:3–10.
    1. Arfken CL, Balon R. Declining participation in research studies. Psychother Psychosom. 2011;80:325–328. doi: 10.1159/000324795.
    1. Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17:643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013.
    1. Nathan G. Telesurvey methodologies for household surveys - A review and some thoughts for the future. Survey Methodol. 2001;27:7–31.
    1. Sangster RL. Can we improve our methods to reduce nonresponse bias in RDD surveys? Am Stat Assoc. 2003:3642–3649.
    1. vanGelder MMHJ, Vlenterie R, IntHout J, Engelen LJLPG, Vrieling A. Belt THvd: most response-inducing strategies do not increase participation in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.019.
    1. de Leeuw E, Callegaro M, Hox J, Korendijk E, Lensvelt-Mulders G. The influence of advance letters on response in telephone surveys: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q. 2007;71:413–443. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfm014.
    1. Carey RN, Reid A, Driscoll TR, Glass DC, Benke G, Fritschi L. An advance letter did not increase the respone rates in a telephone survey: a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1417–1421. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.007.
    1. Snow RE, Prather JE, Hutcheson JD., Jr Program evaluation using a follow-up telephone survey: the effects of a prior letter. Eval Rev. 1986;10:85–94. doi: 10.1177/0193841X8601000105.
    1. Cunningham JA, Kushnir V, Selby P, Tyndale RF, Zawertailo L, Leatherdale ST. Effect of mailing nicotine patches on tobacco cessation among adult smokers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:184–190. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7792.
    1. Cunningham JA, Leatherdale ST, Selby PL, Tyndale RF, Zawertailo L, Kushnir V. Randomized control trial of mailed nicotine replacement therapy to Canadian smokers: study protocol. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-741.
    1. Kushnir V, Selby P, Zawertailo L, Tyndale RF, Leatherdale ST, Cunningham JA. Long-term effectiveness of mailed nicotine replacement therapy: study protocol of a randomized controll trial 5-year follow-up. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:28–36. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4586-z.
    1. Research AAoPO . Standard definitions: final disposition codes and outcome rates for surveys. 9. Lenexa: AAPOR; 2016. p. 9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi