Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Pre-notification
Questionnaire response
Systematic review
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 11 2021
27 11 2021
Historique:
received:
13
04
2021
accepted:
11
10
2021
entrez:
28
11
2021
pubmed:
29
11
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Questionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment. Update the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study's the risk of bias. Inclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates. randomised controlled trails. NA. Studies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy. data was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach. One hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20-1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I Using the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates. Economic and Social Research Council. None.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Questionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment.
OBJECTIVES
Update the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study's the risk of bias.
METHODS
Inclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates.
STUDY DESIGN
randomised controlled trails.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
NA.
DATA SOURCES
Studies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy.
DATA EXTRACTION
data was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
One hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20-1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I
CONCLUSIONS
Using the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates.
FUNDING
Economic and Social Research Council.
PREREGISTRATION
None.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34837965
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2
pii: 10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2
pmc: PMC8627623
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
265Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1348-52
pubmed: 22901398
Prev Med. 2015 Apr;73:106-11
pubmed: 25602908
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jun 08;10:50
pubmed: 20529365
Ann Hum Genet. 2013 May;77(3):244-50
pubmed: 23405968
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1283-93
pubmed: 21839614
J Med Screen. 2011;18(1):24-9
pubmed: 21536813
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;67(8):870-6
pubmed: 24411313
Sage Open. 2018 Jul-Sep;8(3):1-12
pubmed: 32983596
Trials. 2015 Jul 19;16:309
pubmed: 26187378
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Dec;66(12):1422-6
pubmed: 23742789
Trials. 2013 Jul 31;14:239
pubmed: 23902589
Trials. 2016 Feb 24;17(1):107
pubmed: 26912230
Public Opin Q. 1984 Fall;48(3):650-7
pubmed: 10299722
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2016 Apr 14;13:6
pubmed: 27087827
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;68(8):877-87
pubmed: 25920944
Trials. 2015 Jul 08;16:295
pubmed: 26152519
Public Opin Q. 2000 Summer;64(2):171-88
pubmed: 10984332
Ned Tijdschr Psychol. 1957;12(2):68-96
pubmed: 13441035
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 26;11(2):e0150231
pubmed: 26919558
BMC Public Health. 2013 Sep 16;13:849
pubmed: 24041309
Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999 Apr;23(2):196-7
pubmed: 10330737
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jun 19;9:40
pubmed: 19545366
Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jul;130(1):166-72
pubmed: 2741903
Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Jan 1;147(1):74-82
pubmed: 9440402
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Feb;52(2):128-9
pubmed: 9578862
Age Ageing. 2017 Nov 1;46(6):895-903
pubmed: 28481964
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Sep 21;16(1):506
pubmed: 27654008
Health Educ Res. 2004 Apr;19(2):159-64
pubmed: 15031275
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014 Sep 08;15(5):4807
pubmed: 25207564
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Feb;61(2):177-85
pubmed: 18177791
Mil Med. 2019 Mar 1;184(Suppl 1):521-528
pubmed: 30901447
Aust Fam Physician. 1996 Jan;Suppl 1:S41-3
pubmed: 9479799
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Nov;79:90-95
pubmed: 27321820
Nurs Res. 2013 Jul-Aug;62(4):286-91
pubmed: 23817286
Can Fam Physician. 2008 Oct;54(10):1424-30
pubmed: 18854472
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:1-13
pubmed: 29518475
Br J Cancer. 2012 Mar 13;106(6):1021-6
pubmed: 22374464
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Mar;66(3):340-8
pubmed: 23347856
J Ment Health. 2021 May 17;:1-7
pubmed: 33999760
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 18;14(3):e0213822
pubmed: 30883589
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 May;64(5):531-6
pubmed: 20850270
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Nov 09;(11):MR000027
pubmed: 22071866
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Dec 01;15:104
pubmed: 26621534
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Nov 15;11(1):813
pubmed: 30442187
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):65-71
pubmed: 22140191
Aust Fam Physician. 1998 Jan;27 Suppl 1:S15-8
pubmed: 9503730
F1000Res. 2018 Jul 16;7:1083
pubmed: 30863532
J Aging Health. 2004 Nov;16(5 Suppl):124S-36S
pubmed: 15448290
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000008
pubmed: 17443629
BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Nov 10;4(1):31
pubmed: 15537429
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec 1;172(11):1292-8
pubmed: 20880962
J Public Health Med. 1995 Mar;17(1):33-8
pubmed: 7786565
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 20;19(1):65
pubmed: 30894130
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 May;65(5):544-52
pubmed: 22445084
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:35-41
pubmed: 32027931
Trials. 2014 Jan 08;15:13
pubmed: 24401173
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
pubmed: 19588449
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):MR000013
pubmed: 20091668
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 05;18(1):3
pubmed: 29304734
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 22;2:MR000013
pubmed: 29468635
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003 Oct;12(8):821-8
pubmed: 14588132
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2007 Jun;3(2):160-82
pubmed: 17561218
Am J Epidemiol. 1991 Sep 1;134(5):539-42
pubmed: 1897510
Can Fam Physician. 2016 Dec;62(12):e740-e748
pubmed: 27965350
Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2017;35(2):262-276
pubmed: 28943717
Eval Health Prof. 2011 Dec;34(4):434-47
pubmed: 21613242
Gerontology. 2015;61(4):355-63
pubmed: 25591910
Community Dent Health. 2007 Dec;24(4):233-7
pubmed: 18246841
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov;63(11):1276-8
pubmed: 20566266
Eval Rev. 2006 Dec;30(6):817-23
pubmed: 17093110