Strategies to Increase Response Rate and Reduce Nonresponse Bias in Population Health Research: Analysis of a Series of Randomized Controlled Experiments during a Large COVID-19 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: High response rates are needed in population-based studies, as nonresponse reduces effective sample size and bias affects accuracy and decreases the generalizability of the study findings. Objective: We tested different strategies to improve response rate and reduce nonresponse bias in a national population-based COVID-19 surveillance program in England, United Kingdom. Methods: Over 19 rounds, a random sample of individuals aged 5 years and older from the general population in England were invited by mail to complete a web-based questionnaire and return a swab for SARS-CoV-2 testing. We carried out several nested randomized controlled experiments to measure the impact on response rates of different interventions, including (1) variations in invitation and reminder letters and SMS text messages and (2) the offer of a conditional monetary incentive to return a swab, reporting absolute changes in response and relative response rate (95% CIs). Results: Monetary incentives increased the response rate (completed swabs returned as a proportion of the number of individuals invited) across all age groups, sex at birth, and area deprivation with the biggest increase among the lowest responders, namely teenagers and young adults and those living in more deprived areas. With no monetary incentive, the response rate was 3.4% in participants aged 18-22 years, increasing to 8.1% with a £10 (US $12.5) incentive, 11.9% with £20 (US $25.0), and 18.2% with £30 (US $37.5) (relative response rate 2.4 [95% CI 2.0-2.9], 3.5 [95% CI 3.0-4.2], and 5.4 [95% CI 4.4-6.7], respectively). Nonmonetary strategies had a modest, if any, impact on response rate. The largest effect was observed for sending an additional swab reminder (SMS text message or email). For example, those receiving an additional SMS text message were more likely to return a completed swab compared to those receiving the standard email-SMS approach, 73.3% versus 70.2%: percentage difference 3.1% (95% CI 2.2%-4.0%). Conclusions: Conditional monetary incentives improved response rates to a web-based survey, which required the return of a swab test, particularly for younger age groups. Used in a selective way, incentives may be an effective strategy for improving sample response and representativeness in population-based studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.439 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".