The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
TP planned the study, analyzed the data, conducted the systematic review, wrote the manuscript. SC and SR planned the study, managed the data collection, interpreted the results, revised the manuscript. TA, RS planned the study, interpreted the results, revised the manuscript. DC planned the study, conducted the systematic review, interpreted the results, revised the manuscript. CC conducted the meta-analysis, interpreted the results, revised the manuscript. All authors approve the manuscript.
Tracing mail survey responses is useful for the management of reminders but may cause concerns about anonymity among prospective participants. We examined the impact of numbering return envelopes on the participation and the results of a survey on a sensitive topic among hospital staff.
In a survey about regrets associated with providing healthcare conducted among hospital-based doctors and nurses, two randomly drawn subsamples were provided numbered (N = 1100) and non-numbered (N = 500) envelopes for the return of completed questionnaires. Participation, explicit refusals, and item responses were compared. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the effect of questionnaire/envelope numbering on participation in health surveys.
The participation rate was lower in the “numbered” group than in the “non-numbered” group (30.3% vs. 35.0%, p = 0.073), the proportion of explicit refusals was higher in the “numbered” group (23.1% vs 17.5%, p = 0.016), and the proportion of those who never returned the questionnaire was similar (46.6% vs 47.5%, p = 0.78). The means of responses differed significantly for 12 of 105 items (11.4%), which did not differ significantly from the expected frequency of type 1 errors, i.e., 5% (permutation test, p = 0.078). The meta-analysis of 7 experimental surveys (including this one) indicated that numbering is associated with a 2.4% decrease in the survey response rate (95% confidence interval 0.3% to 4.4%).
Numbered return envelopes may reduce the response rate and increase explicit refusals to participate in a sensitive survey. Reduced participation was confirmed by a meta-analysis of randomized health surveys. There was no strong evidence of bias.
Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009, 3: MR000008
Albaum G: Do source and anonymity affect mail survey results?. J Acad Marketing Sci. 1987, 15: 74-81. CrossRef
McKee DO: The effect of using a questionnaire identification code and message about non-response follow-up plans on mail survey response characteristics. J Market Res Soc. 1992, 34: 179-91.
Futrell CM, Stem DE, Fortune BD: Effects of signed versus unsigned internally administered questionnaires for managers. J Bus Res. 1978, 6: 91-8. 10.1016/0148-2963(78)90001-2. CrossRef
Dwass M: Modified randomization tests for nonparametric hypotheses. Ann Math Stat. 1957, 28: 181-7. 10.1214/aoms/1177707045. CrossRef
Core Team R: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2013, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org/,
Sinclair M, O’Toole J, Malawaraarachchi M, Leder K: Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012, 12: 132-10.1186/1471-2288-12-132. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
- Effect of numbering of return envelopes on participation, explicit refusals, and bias: experiment and meta-analysis
Thomas V Perneger
Ralph E Schmidt
Delphine S Courvoisier
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II