Third mailings in epidemiological studies: are they really necessary?

Alison M Elliott; Philip C Hannaford

doi:10.1093/fampra/cmg517

Third mailings in epidemiological studies: are they really necessary?

Alison M Elliott, Philip C Hannaford

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

9 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 previous suggestion that the effort and resources expended in carrying out a third mailing may not be justified.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	592-4
Number of pages	3
Journal	Family Practice
Volume	20
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmg517
Publication status	Published - Oct 2003
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Data collection
Epidemiological methods
Health Surveys
Questionnaires
Response bias

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1093/fampra/cmg517

Cite this

@article{84102a85c8424e12b81b37729a9e135d,

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 previous suggestion that the effort and resources expended in carrying out a third mailing may not be justified.",

author = "Elliott, \{Alison M\} and Hannaford, \{Philip C\}",

year = "2003",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1093/fampra/cmg517",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

pages = "592--4",

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 M

AU - Hannaford, Philip C

PY - 2003/10

Y1 - 2003/10

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 previous 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 previous suggestion that the effort and resources expended in carrying out a third mailing may not be justified.

U2 - 10.1093/fampra/cmg517

DO - 10.1093/fampra/cmg517

M3 - Article

C2 - 14507804

SN - 0263-2136

VL - 20

SP - 592

EP - 594

JO - Family Practice

JF - Family Practice

IS - 5

ER -

Third mailings in epidemiological studies: are they really necessary?

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this