Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract 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 commun...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Benjamin Woolf, Phil Edwards
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Pre-notification Systematic review Questionnaire response Medicine (General) R5-920
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f31337735d704375843d9bd7c677c022
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f31337735d704375843d9bd7c677c022
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f31337735d704375843d9bd7c677c0222021-11-28T12:38:48ZDoes advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis10.1186/s12874-021-01435-21471-2288https://doaj.org/article/f31337735d704375843d9bd7c677c0222021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288Abstract 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 (I2 = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99–1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results. 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.Benjamin WoolfPhil EdwardsBMCarticlePre-notificationSystematic reviewQuestionnaire responseMedicine (General)R5-920ENBMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-27 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Pre-notification Systematic review Questionnaire response Medicine (General) R5-920
spellingShingle	Pre-notification Systematic review Questionnaire response Medicine (General) R5-920 Benjamin Woolf Phil Edwards Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
description	Abstract 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 (I2 = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99–1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results. 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.
format	article
author	Benjamin Woolf Phil Edwards
author_facet	Benjamin Woolf Phil Edwards
author_sort	Benjamin Woolf
title	Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short	Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full	Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr	Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed	Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort	does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/f31337735d704375843d9bd7c677c022
work_keys_str_mv	AT benjaminwoolf doesadvancecontactwithresearchparticipantsincreaseresponsetoquestionnairesanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT philedwards doesadvancecontactwithresearchparticipantsincreaseresponsetoquestionnairesanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_	1718407868088057856

Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Ejemplares similares