Third mailings in epidemiological studies: are they really necessary?

Alison Margaret Elliott, Philip Christopher Hannaford

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction. Whether or not third mailings are appropriate or worthwhile in postal epidemiological studies has not been thoroughly investigated and requires examination.

Methods. A self-completion postal questionnaire of 2184 individuals was conducted in 2000. The socio-demographic and health characteristics of four groups of individuals (first mailing respondents, second mailing respondents, third mailing respondents and non-respondents) were compared.

Results. Some significant differences between the groups were found, however, the inclusion of respondents to the third mailing did not significantly change the overall characteristics of respondents compared to non-respondents.

Discussion. When differences do exist between respondents and non-respondents, our results suggest that a third mailing is unlikely to remove many of these differences. The study supports our preivous suggestion that the effort and resources expended in carrying out a third mailing may not be justified.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)592-594
Number of pages2
JournalFamily Practice
Volume20
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Keywords

  • data collection
  • epidemiological methods
  • health surveys
  • questionnaires
  • response bias

Cite this

Third mailings in epidemiological studies : are they really necessary? / Elliott, Alison Margaret; Hannaford, Philip Christopher.

In: Family Practice, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2003, p. 592-594.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ccca16f71e1645e8b1cd83b84e773107,
title = "Third mailings in epidemiological studies: are they really necessary?",
abstract = "Introduction. Whether or not third mailings are appropriate or worthwhile in postal epidemiological studies has not been thoroughly investigated and requires examination.Methods. A self-completion postal questionnaire of 2184 individuals was conducted in 2000. The socio-demographic and health characteristics of four groups of individuals (first mailing respondents, second mailing respondents, third mailing respondents and non-respondents) were compared.Results. Some significant differences between the groups were found, however, the inclusion of respondents to the third mailing did not significantly change the overall characteristics of respondents compared to non-respondents.Discussion. When differences do exist between respondents and non-respondents, our results suggest that a third mailing is unlikely to remove many of these differences. The study supports our preivous suggestion that the effort and resources expended in carrying out a third mailing may not be justified.",
keywords = "data collection, epidemiological methods, health surveys, questionnaires, response bias",
author = "Elliott, {Alison Margaret} and Hannaford, {Philip Christopher}",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1093/fampra/cmg517",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "592--594",
journal = "Family Practice",
issn = "0263-2136",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Third mailings in epidemiological studies

T2 - are they really necessary?

AU - Elliott, Alison Margaret

AU - Hannaford, Philip Christopher

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Introduction. Whether or not third mailings are appropriate or worthwhile in postal epidemiological studies has not been thoroughly investigated and requires examination.Methods. A self-completion postal questionnaire of 2184 individuals was conducted in 2000. The socio-demographic and health characteristics of four groups of individuals (first mailing respondents, second mailing respondents, third mailing respondents and non-respondents) were compared.Results. Some significant differences between the groups were found, however, the inclusion of respondents to the third mailing did not significantly change the overall characteristics of respondents compared to non-respondents.Discussion. When differences do exist between respondents and non-respondents, our results suggest that a third mailing is unlikely to remove many of these differences. The study supports our preivous suggestion that the effort and resources expended in carrying out a third mailing may not be justified.

AB - Introduction. Whether or not third mailings are appropriate or worthwhile in postal epidemiological studies has not been thoroughly investigated and requires examination.Methods. A self-completion postal questionnaire of 2184 individuals was conducted in 2000. The socio-demographic and health characteristics of four groups of individuals (first mailing respondents, second mailing respondents, third mailing respondents and non-respondents) were compared.Results. Some significant differences between the groups were found, however, the inclusion of respondents to the third mailing did not significantly change the overall characteristics of respondents compared to non-respondents.Discussion. When differences do exist between respondents and non-respondents, our results suggest that a third mailing is unlikely to remove many of these differences. The study supports our preivous suggestion that the effort and resources expended in carrying out a third mailing may not be justified.

KW - data collection

KW - epidemiological methods

KW - health surveys

KW - questionnaires

KW - response bias

U2 - 10.1093/fampra/cmg517

DO - 10.1093/fampra/cmg517

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 592

EP - 594

JO - Family Practice

JF - Family Practice

SN - 0263-2136

IS - 5

ER -