TY - JOUR
T1 - Telephone follow-up to a mail survey
T2 - When to offer an interview compared to a reminder call
AU - Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y.
AU - Burmeister, Kelly R.
AU - Harris, Ann
AU - Holubar, Stefan D.
AU - Beebe, Timothy J.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Background: Using a different mode of contact on the final follow-up to survey non-respondents is an identified strategy to increase response rates. This study was designed to determine if a reminder phone call or a phone interview as a final mode of contact to a mailed survey works better to increase response rates and which strategy is more cost effective. Methods. A randomized study was embedded within a survey study of individuals treated with ulcerative colitis conducted in March 2009 in Olmsted County, Minnesota. After two mail contacts, non-respondents were randomly assigned to either a reminder telephone call or a telephone interview. Average cost per completed interview and response rates were compared between the two experimental conditions. Results: The response rate in the reminder group and the interview did not differ where we considered both a completed survey and a signed form a complete (24% vs. 29%, p = 0.08). However, if such a signed form was not required, there was a substantial advantage to completing the interview over the phone (24% vs. 43%, p < 0.0001). The reminder group on average cost $27.00 per completed survey, while the interview group on average cost $53.00 per completed survey when a signed form was required and $36.00 per complete when a signed form was not required. Conclusions: The additional cost of completing an interview is worth it when an additional signed form is not required of the respondent. However, when such a signed form is required, offering an interview instead of a reminder phone call as a follow up to non-respondents does not increase response rates enough to outweigh the additional costs.
AB - Background: Using a different mode of contact on the final follow-up to survey non-respondents is an identified strategy to increase response rates. This study was designed to determine if a reminder phone call or a phone interview as a final mode of contact to a mailed survey works better to increase response rates and which strategy is more cost effective. Methods. A randomized study was embedded within a survey study of individuals treated with ulcerative colitis conducted in March 2009 in Olmsted County, Minnesota. After two mail contacts, non-respondents were randomly assigned to either a reminder telephone call or a telephone interview. Average cost per completed interview and response rates were compared between the two experimental conditions. Results: The response rate in the reminder group and the interview did not differ where we considered both a completed survey and a signed form a complete (24% vs. 29%, p = 0.08). However, if such a signed form was not required, there was a substantial advantage to completing the interview over the phone (24% vs. 43%, p < 0.0001). The reminder group on average cost $27.00 per completed survey, while the interview group on average cost $53.00 per completed survey when a signed form was required and $36.00 per complete when a signed form was not required. Conclusions: The additional cost of completing an interview is worth it when an additional signed form is not required of the respondent. However, when such a signed form is required, offering an interview instead of a reminder phone call as a follow up to non-respondents does not increase response rates enough to outweigh the additional costs.
KW - Health surveys
KW - Survey Nonresponse follow-up
KW - Survey methods
KW - Telephone follow-up
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858395621&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858395621&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1471-2288-12-32
DO - 10.1186/1471-2288-12-32
M3 - Article
C2 - 22433024
AN - SCOPUS:84858395621
SN - 1471-2288
VL - 12
JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology
JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology
M1 - 32
ER -