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

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Benjamin Woolf¹  Phil Edwards² 

[1] Department of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 5 Priory Road, Bristol, UK;Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK;Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK;Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK;

关键词: Pre-notification;    Systematic review;    Questionnaire response;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundQuestionnaires 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.ObjectivesUpdate 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.MethodsInclusion 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.ResultsOne 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.ConclusionsUsing the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates.FundingEconomic and Social Research Council.PreregistrationNone.

【 授权许可】

CC BY