Logo image
Back
Cost‐effectiveness of follow‐up contact for a postal survey: a randomised controlled trial
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Cost‐effectiveness of follow‐up contact for a postal survey: a randomised controlled trial

Courtney L. Breen, Anthony P. Shakeshaft, Christopher M. Doran, Rob W. Sanson-Fisher and Richard P. Mattick
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol.34(5), pp.508-512
2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00598.x
PMID: 21040180
url
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00598.xView
Published Version Open

Abstract

cost follow‐up non‐response randomised controlled trial response rate survey
Objective: This study examines the effectiveness and costs of follow‐up phone calls in improving response rates to a community survey. Methods: Non‐responders to a postal survey were randomly allocated to receive a phone call or no phone call. The resources used for the development and implementation of the survey were documented. The response rates and cost per level of follow‐up contact examined. Results: Follow‐up phone calls led to a statistical significant increase in the number of responses to a community‐wide survey, relative to no phone call. This relative increase in responses (n=62 for the follow‐up phone call group versus n=1 for controls), did not increase the absolute survey response rate sufficiently (from 38.5% for two mailed surveys to 39.8% for two mailed surveys plus a phone call) to justify the phone call costs. Scenario analyses show increasing the initial response rate by 10% and conducting a second mailed survey achieves greater marginal cost savings than increasing the response rate to the second mailout or the follow‐up phone calls. Conclusions: These results suggest a follow‐up phone call was not cost effective. Survey research ought to primarily focus on obtaining optimal initial response rates by using strategies identified in a Cochrane meta‐analytic review.

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views
29 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image