European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 409–415 | Cite as

25-year Trends and Socio-demographic Differences in Response Rates: Finnish Adult Health Behaviour Survey

  • Hanna TolonenEmail author
  • Satu Helakorpi
  • Kirsi Talala
  • Ville Helasoja
  • Tuija Martelin
  • Ritva Prättälä


When estimating population level changes in health indicators, the declining response rate, especially if also the characteristics of non-respondents are changing may bias the outcome. There is evidence that survey response rates are declining in many countries. It is also known that respondents and non-respondents differ in their socio-economic and demographic status as well as in their health and health behaviours. There is no information about the changes in the differences between respondents and non-respondents over time. Our purpose was to investigate the changes over time in the differences between respondents and non-respondents in respect to their sex, age, marital status and educational level. The data from the Finnish Adult Health Behaviour Survey (1978–2002) was used. The response rate declined over the past 25 years for both men and women in all age groups. The decline was faster among men than women, and also faster in younger age groups than older age groups. There is a marked difference in the response rate between married and non-married persons but it did not change over time. Also the response rate between different educational levels differed for both men and women, and this difference increased over the years. The declining response rate and at the same time occurring change in the non-respondent characteristics will decrease the representativeness of the results, limit the comparability of the results with other surveys, increase the bias of the trend estimates and limit the comparability of the results between population groups.


Bias Marital status Educational level Mail survey Non-response 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Steeh CG (1981) Trends in nonresponse rates, 1952–1979. Publ Opin Quart 45:40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atrostic BK, Bates N, Burt G, Silberstein A (2001) Nonresponse in U.S. Government household surveys: consistent measures, recent trends, and new Insights. J Off Stat 17:209–226Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Heer W. (1999) International response trends: results of an international surveyJ Off Stat 15:129–142Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Heer WF, Israëls AZ. Response Trends in Europe. Am Stat Assoc Proc Sect Survey Res Meth. 1992; 92–101Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolf HK, Kuulasmaa K, Tolonen H, Ruokokoski E. for the WHO MONICA Project Participation Rates, Quality of Sampling Frames and Sampling Fractions in the MONICA Surveys (1998) Available from: URL:, URN:NBN:fi-fe19991076Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Savitz DA. (2003) Interpreting Epidemiologic Evidence : Strategies for Study Design and Analysis Oxford; New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eaker S, Bergstrom R, Bergstrom A, Adami HO, Nyren O. (1998) Response rate to mailed epidemiologic questionnaires: a population-based randomized trial of variations in design and mailing routines Am J Epidemiol 147:74–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groves RM, Couper MP. (1996) Correlates of nonresponse in personal visit surveys. Am Stat Assoc Proc Sect Survey Res Meth. 1992; 102–111Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson R, Chambless LE, Yang K, et al. (1996) Differences between respondents and nonrespondents in a multicenter community-based study vary by gender ethnicity The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Investigators J Clin Epidemiol 49:1441–1446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mishra SI, Dooley D, Catalano R, Serxner S. (1993) Telephone health surveys: potential bias from noncompletion Am J Public Health 83:94–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shahar E, Folsom AR, Jackson R. (1996) The effect of nonresponse on prevalence estimates for a referent population: insights from a population-based cohort study. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Investigators Ann Epidemiol 6:498–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goyder J, Warriner K, Miller S. (2002) Evaluating Socio-economic Status (SES) bias in survey nonresponse J Off Stat 18:1–11Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macera CA, Jackson KL, Davis DR, Kronenfeld JJ, Blair SN. (1990) Patterns of non-response to a mail survey J Clin Epidemiol 43:1427–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Helakorpi S, Patja K, Prättälä R, Aro AR, Uutela A. Health Behaviour and Health among Finnish Adult Population, Spring 2003. Publications of the National Public Health Institute. Helsinki: National Public Health Institute; 2003. Report No.: B17/2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Statistics Finland Classification Services - Individual classifications (2005) Available from: URL: htmlGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waterhouse J, Muir CS, Correa P, Powell J. (eds). (1976) Cancer Indicence in Five Continents. Lyon: IARCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    SAS Institute Inc. (2005) SAS Online Doc(R) 9.1.3. In. Cary, NC: SAS Institute IncGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. (1997) Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 50:1129–1136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lessler JT, Kalsbeek WD (1992) Nonsampling Error in Surveys. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aiken LR. (1981) Proportion of returns in survey research. Educ Psychol Meas 41:1033–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rea LM, Parker RA (1997) Designing and Conducting Survey Research : A Comprehensive Guide. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salant P, Dillman DA (1994) How to Conduct Your Own Survey. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones J. (1996) The effects of non-response on statistical inference. J Health Soc Policy 8:49–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marmot MG, Wilkinson RG (1999) Social Determinants of Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lahelma E, Rahkonen O, Berg MA, et al. (1997) Changes in health status and health behavior among Finnish adults 1978–1993. Scand J Work Environ Health 23(Suppl 3):85–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pekkanen J, Tuomilehto J, Uutela A, Vartiainen E, Nissinen A. (1995) Social class, health behaviour, and mortality among men and women in eastern Finland. Bmj 311:589–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huisman M, Kunst AE, Bopp M, et al. (2005) Educational inequalities in cause-specific mortality in middle-aged and older men and women in eight western European populations. Lancet 365:493–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tolonen H, Dobson A, Kulathinal S (2005) Effect on trend estimates of the difference between survey respondents and non-respondents: results from 27 Populations in the WHO MONICA Project Eur J Epidemiol 20:887–898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna Tolonen
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Satu Helakorpi
    • 1
  • Kirsi Talala
    • 1
  • Ville Helasoja
    • 1
  • Tuija Martelin
    • 2
  • Ritva Prättälä
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Promotion and Chronic Disease PreventionNational Public Health Institute (KTL)HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Health and Functional CapacityNational Public Health Institute (KTL)HelsinkFinland
  3. 3.Department of Health Promotion and Chronic Disease PreventionNational Public Health Institute (KTL)HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations