Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, A. M
Right arrow Articles by Hannaford, P. C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, A. M
Right arrow Articles by Hannaford, P. C
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 20, No. 5, 592-594
© Oxford University Press 2003

Research Methods

Third mailings in epidemiological studies: are they really necessary?

Alison M Elliott and Philip C Hannaford

Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Westburn Road, Aberdeen AB25 2AY, UK.

Correspondence to Dr Alison M Elliott; E-mail: a.m.purves{at}abdn.ac.uk

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

Keywords. Data collection, epidemiological methods, health surveys, questionnaires, response bias.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. D. Steffen, L. N. Kolonel, A. M. Nomura, F. S. Nagamine, K. R. Monroe, and L. R. Wilkens
The Effect of Multiple Mailings on Recruitment: The Multiethnic Cohort
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2008; 17(2): 447 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Qual Saf Health CareHome page
A Wilson, P Sinfield, S Rodgers, V Hammersley, and T Coleman
Drugs to support smoking cessation in UK general practice: are evidence based guidelines being followed?
Qual. Saf. Health Care, August 1, 2006; 15(4): 284 - 288.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.