Related Experiment Videos
Third mailings in epidemiological studies: are they really necessary?
Alison M Elliott1, Philip C Hannaford
1Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Westburn Road, Aberdeen AB25 2AY, UK. a.m.purves@abdn.ac.uk
Family Practice
|September 26, 2003
Summary
Third mailings in postal epidemiology studies may not be worthwhile. A study found that including third mailing respondents did not significantly alter overall respondent characteristics compared to non-respondents.
Area of Science:
- Epidemiology
- Public Health Research Methods
Background:
- Assessing the utility of multiple mailings in postal epidemiological surveys is crucial for optimizing resource allocation.
- Previous research has not thoroughly investigated the effectiveness of third mailings in postal studies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the appropriateness and impact of conducting a third mailing in a postal epidemiological study.
- To determine if a third mailing effectively reduces non-response bias.
Main Methods:
- A postal questionnaire survey was administered to 2184 individuals in 2000.
- Socio-demographic and health characteristics of first, second, and third mailing respondents, as well as non-respondents, were compared.
Main Results:
- Significant differences were observed among the respondent groups and non-respondents.
- However, including third mailing respondents did not substantially alter the overall characteristics of the respondent pool when compared to non-respondents.
Conclusions:
- A third mailing is unlikely to significantly mitigate existing differences between respondents and non-respondents.
- The resources and effort invested in a third mailing may not be justified by its limited impact on reducing non-response bias.