Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 333–340 | Cite as

The effect of reminders in a web-based intervention study

  • Madeleine Svensson
  • Tobias Svensson
  • Andreas Wolff Hansen
  • Ylva Trolle Lagerros
METHODS

Abstract

Knowledge on effective strategies to encourage participation in epidemiological web-based research is scant. We studied the effects of reminders on overall participation. 3,876 employees were e-mailed a baseline web-based lifestyle questionnaire. Nine months later, a follow-up questionnaire was sent. To encourage study participation, 4–5 and 11 e-mail reminders were sent at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Additional reminders (media articles, flyers, SMS etc) were also administered. Reminders (e-mails + additional) were given in low (≤6 reminders), medium (7–9 reminders) or high amounts (>9 reminders). Participation was examined with respect to participant characteristics (i.e. age, sex, Body Mass Index, occupation), type/number of reminders, and time of participation. Most participants were males, 35–49 years, and field workers (non-office based). About 29 % responded before any e-mail reminder, following 26 and 45 % after 1 respective ≥ 2 e-mail reminders. Participant characteristics were not related to when the participants responded. The 4–5 e-mail reminders increased total response rate by 15 %, the eleven by 21 % (greatest increases in September). Those receiving medium amounts of reminders (reference) had the highest response rate (75 %), likewise office workers (54 %) compared to field workers (33 %). High amounts of reminders were particularly effective on office workers. The participants’ characteristics were not related to when they responded in this web-based study. Frequent reminders were effective on response rates, especially for those with high Internet availability. The highest increases in response rates were found in September.

Keywords

Epidemiology Internet Intervention Participation rate Reminders 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the following contributions to the conduct of this study: Dr. Julia Simard for her valuable comments and assistance in the writing process and analyses of the manuscript, Dr. Linda Bakkman for her planning of the intervention study of which the present study has been based on, student Judith van den Broek for her assistance in the recruitment process and data management of the preliminary results, and research colleagues (Stephan Rössner and Anna Westerlund) for valuable feedback in the writing process. Lastly, the authors would also like to thank the reviewers for valuable comments during the revision process. This research was financially supported by Banverket’s research fund, Sweden.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(9):643–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balter KA, Balter O, Fondell E, Lagerros YT. Web-based and mailed questionnaires: a comparison of response rates and compliance. Epidemiology. 2005;16(4):577–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Im EO, Chee W. Recruitment of research participants through the Internet. Comput Inform Nurs. 2004;22(5):289–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Tornetta P, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison (2). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(4):e39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Tornetta P, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, et al. Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:MR000008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robert S. Multiple prior notifications, personalization, and reminder surveys. Market Res (serial on the Internet). 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sahlqvist S, Song Y, Bull F, Adams E, Preston J, Ogilvie D. Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE. Maximising response to postal questionnaires—a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, Hjollund NH. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(3):e25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell CW, Boggs DA, Palmer JR, Rosenberg L. Use of a web-based questionnaire in the Black Women’s Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(11):1286–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wangberg SC, Bergmo TS, Johnsen JA. Adherence in Internet-based interventions. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2008;2:57–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seguin R, Godwin M, MacDonald S, McCall M. E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys. Can Fam Phys. 2004;50:414–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akl EA, Maroun N, Klocke RA, Montori V, Schunemann HJ. Electronic mail was not better than postal mail for surveying residents and faculty. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(4):425–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Netsurvey. About us—from questions to results. 2012; Available from http://netsurvey.se/en/about-us.
  17. 17.
    Davies HT, Crombie IK, Tavakoli M. When can odds ratios mislead? BMJ. 1998;316(7136):989–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akl EA, Gaddam S, Mustafa R, Wilson MC, Symons A, Grifasi A, et al. The effects of tracking responses and the day of mailing on physician survey response rate: three randomized trials. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(2):e16942.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooper AR, Page AS, Wheeler BW, Hillsdon M, Griew P, Jago R. Patterns of GPS measured time outdoors after school and objective physical activity in English children: the PEACH project. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kamezaki F, Sonoda S, Tomotsune Y, Yunaka H, Otsuji Y. Seasonal variation in metabolic syndrome prevalence. Hypertens Res. 2010;33(6):568–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ma Y, Olendzki BC, Li W, Hafner AR, Chiriboga D, Hebert JR, et al. Seasonal variation in food intake, physical activity, and body weight in a predominantly overweight population. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006;60(4):519–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shephard RJ, Aoyagi Y. Seasonal variations in physical activity and implications for human health. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;107(3):251–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colkesen EB, Kraaijenhagen RA, Frings-Dresen MH, Sluiter JK, van Kalken CK, Tijssen JG, et al. Participation in a workplace web-based health risk assessment program. Occup Med (Lond). 2011;61(8):586–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lakerveld J, Ijzelenberg W, van Tulder MW, Hellemans IM, Rauwerda JA, van Rossum AC, et al. Motives for (not) participating in a lifestyle intervention trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guy RHJ, Wand H, Stott S, Ali H, Kaldor J. How effective are short message service reminders at increasing clinic attendence? A meta-analysis and systematic review. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(2):614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eaker S, Bergstrom R, Bergstrom A, Adami HO, Nyren O. Response rate to mailed epidemiologic questionnaires: a population-based randomized trial of variations in design and mailing routines. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147(1):74–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spittaels H, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Who participates in a computer-tailored physical activity program delivered through the Internet? A comparison of participants’ and non-participants’ characteristics. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007;4:39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stopponi MA, Alexander GL, McClure JB, Carroll NM, Divine GW, Calvi JH, et al. Recruitment to a randomized web-based nutritional intervention trial: characteristics of participants compared to non-participants. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(3):e38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Couper MPKA, Schonlau M, Winter J. Noncoverage and Nonresponse in an Internet Survey. Soc Sci Res. 2007;36:131–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bennett GG, Glasgow RE. The delivery of public health interventions via the Internet: actualizing their potential. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;29(30):273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madeleine Svensson
    • 1
  • Tobias Svensson
    • 1
  • Andreas Wolff Hansen
    • 2
  • Ylva Trolle Lagerros
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, T2, Department of MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.National Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations