Suppr超能文献

预先联系研究参与者是否会增加问卷调查的回应率:一项更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。

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

机构信息

Department of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 5 Priory Road, Bristol, UK.

Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Nov 27;21(1):265. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2.

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 (I = 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.

摘要

背景

问卷仍然是流行病学、心理学和其他人文科学中最常用的数据收集形式之一。然而,结果可能会因无应答而受到严重影响。一种潜在的减少无应答的方法是通过向潜在的研究参与者提前发送沟通信息。上一次系统审查是在 10 年前检查问卷预通知对响应的影响,并且缺乏偏倚风险评估。

目的

更新 Cochrane 系统综述中关于预通知的部分,包括:1)最近发表的研究,2)风险偏倚评估,3)探索以下因素是否能减少异质性:预接触和问卷交付之间的延迟,预接触的方法,如果预接触和问卷交付不同,如果预接触包括进门策略,以及研究的风险偏倚。

方法

纳入标准:人群:任何人群,干预:比较某种类型的预通知,对照组:无预通知,结果:响应率。

研究设计

随机对照试验。

排除标准

无。

资料来源

引用或包含在 Edwards 等人(2009 年)中的研究;我们还额外搜索了:CINAHL、Web of Science、PsycInfo、MEDLINE、EconLit、EMBASE、Cochrane 中央、Cochrane CMR、ERIC 和社会学摘要。搜索于 2018 年 6 月和 2021 年 5 月进行。研究筛选:一名评审员筛选研究,对随机抽取的 10%样本进行独立筛选以确保准确性。

数据提取

由一名评审员两次提取数据,每次提取之间间隔一周。风险偏倚:单盲评审员使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚工具(ROB1)评估单研究内偏倚,使用漏斗图评估跨研究偏倚。综合方法:使用最终响应率作为结局,使用随机效应模型对研究结果进行荟萃分析。不确定性评估:使用 GRADE 方法评估不确定性。

结果

共纳入 107 项试验,涉及 211802 名参与者。总体而言,预通知增加了响应率,OR=1.33(95%CI:1.20-1.47)。然而,存在大量异质性(I=97.1%),亚组分析无法解释。此外,当排除高风险或不确定偏倚的研究时,效果是降低 OR=1.09(95%CI:0.99-1.20)。由于存在大量异质性,即使在限制为低风险偏倚研究后,这些结果仍然存在中度不确定性。

结论

使用 GRADE 评估,本综述发现中度证据表明预通知可能对响应率没有影响。

经费来源

经济和社会研究委员会。

预先登记

无。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cbf/8627623/37d288484aa1/12874_2021_1435_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验