探索交互式语音应答（IVR）调查的障碍以及人工跟进电话的有效性：来自乌干达一项混合方法研究的见解

Exploring barriers to IVR surveys and the effectiveness of human follow-up calls: insights from a mixed methods study in Uganda.

作者信息

Tweheyo Raymond, Gibson Dustin, Kuo Helen, Ali Joe, Kaufman Michelle, Ortiz Andres Vecino, Rutebemberwa Elizeus

机构信息

Department of Health Policy Planning and Management, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Mulago Hill-Road. P.O.Box, 7072, Kampala, Uganda.

Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.

出版信息

Oxf Open Digit Health. 2025 Aug 16;3:oqaf017. doi: 10.1093/oodh/oqaf017. eCollection 2025.

DOI:10.1093/oodh/oqaf017

PMID:40917701

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12413760/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study explored reasons why respondents neither initiate nor complete an interactive voice response (IVR) survey and whether call-backs by a human can increase subsequent IVR survey participation.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods study. Using random digit dialing (RDD), participants were sent an IVR survey (IVR-RDD) to their mobile phone. Participants from the IVR-RDD who either did not pick the phone or terminated the survey within two questions were contacted for a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey to assess reasons for non-participation. Following CATI completion, a similar IVR survey was sent (post-CATI IVR). Descriptive statistics and adjusted logistic regression models were conducted to assess differences in survey outcomes between the IVR-RDD and the post-CATI IVR groups.

RESULTS

A total of 23 288 IVR-RDD, 9740 CATI and 1000 post CATI IVR calls were made to yield 1.9%, 11.8% and 44.9% response rates, respectively. The most common reasons for non-response or drop-off to the IVR-RDD were being busy, misunderstanding IVR instructions and mistrust of the IVR caller. Compared to the IVR-RDD, the post-CATI IVR increased both contact rate, from [(2.9%; 669/23062) to (7.74%; 1758/22704); adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 2.56, 3.08, < 0.001] and response rate, from [(2.25%; 518/23062) to 4.54% (1031/22704); AOR 2.07, 95%CI 1.86, 2.30, < 0.001], but no impact on the cooperation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding reasons for survey non-response can allow for interventions to improve survey response. Introducing a human interviewer to those who did not complete the IVR survey improves subsequent IVR survey participation rates.

摘要

背景

本研究探讨了受访者既不发起也不完成交互式语音应答（IVR）调查的原因，以及人工回访是否能提高后续IVR调查的参与率。

方法

我们进行了一项混合方法研究。通过随机数字拨号（RDD），向参与者的手机发送IVR调查（IVR-RDD）。对于IVR-RDD中未接电话或在两个问题内终止调查的参与者，联系他们进行计算机辅助电话访谈（CATI）调查，以评估不参与的原因。在CATI完成后，发送类似的IVR调查（CATI后IVR）。进行描述性统计和调整后的逻辑回归模型，以评估IVR-RDD组和CATI后IVR组之间调查结果的差异。

结果

总共拨打了23288个IVR-RDD电话、9740个CATI电话和1000个CATI后IVR电话，回复率分别为1.9%、11.8%和44.9%。IVR-RDD无回复或放弃的最常见原因是忙碌、误解IVR说明以及不信任IVR来电者。与IVR-RDD相比，CATI后IVR提高了联系率，从[（2.9%；669/23062）提高到（7.74%；1758/22704）；调整后的优势比（AOR）2.81，95%置信区间（95%CI）2.56，3.08，<0.001]和回复率，从[（2.25%；518/23062）提高到4.54%（1031/22704）；AOR 2.07，95%CI 1.86，2.30，<0.001]，但对合作率没有影响。