Abstract

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials have investigated aspects of postal survey design yet cannot elaborate on reasons behind participants' decision making and survey behaviour. This paper reports participants' perspectives of the design of, and participation in, a longitudinal postal cohort survey. It describes strengths and weaknesses in study design from the perspectives of study participants and aims to contribute to the: 1) design of future cohort surveys and questionnaires generally and, 2) design of cohort surveys for people with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) specifically.MethodsIn-depth interviews explored the design of postal surveys previously completed by participants. Interviews used open ended questioning with a topic guide for prompts if areas of interest were not covered spontaneously. Thematic data analysis was undertaken based on the framework method. A second researcher verified all coding.ResultsData from fourteen interviews were analysed within three main themes; participation, survey design and survey content. One of the main findings was the importance of clear communication aimed at the correct audience both when inviting potential participants to take part and within the survey itself. Providing enough information about the study, having a topic of interest and an explanation of likely benefits of the study were important when inviting people to participate. The neutrality of the survey and origination from a reputable source were both important; as was an explanation about why information was being collected within the survey itself. Study findings included participants' impressions when invited to take part, why they participated, the acceptability of follow-up of non-responders and why participants completed the follow-up postal survey. Also discussed were participants' first impression of the survey, its length, presentation and participants' views about specific questions within the survey.ConclusionsIdeas generated in this study provide an insight into participants' decision making and survey behaviour and may enhance the acceptability of future surveys to potential participants. As well as clear communication, participants valued incentives and survey questions that were relevant to them. However, opinions varied as to the preferred format for responses with some advising more opportunity for open-ended feedback. We also found that some standard format questions can raise quandaries for individual participants.

Highlights

  • Randomised controlled trials have investigated aspects of postal survey design yet cannot elaborate on reasons behind participants’ decision making and survey behaviour

  • A recent systematic review identified 481 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which had evaluated 110 different methods aimed at increasing the response rate to postal questionnaires [6,7]

  • This paper reports study participants’ views about the design of, and participation in, a longitudinal postal cohort survey investigating the prevalence and incidence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials have investigated aspects of postal survey design yet cannot elaborate on reasons behind participants’ decision making and survey behaviour. This paper reports participants’ perspectives of the design of, and participation in, a longitudinal postal cohort survey. When collecting self-reported data from participants, researchers use a variety of methods including: telephone interviews, in-person interviews, web-based questionnaires and postal paper-based questionnaires. A recent systematic review identified 481 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which had evaluated 110 different methods aimed at increasing the response rate to postal questionnaires [6,7]. Factors found to increase participation include: monetary incentives, using potential participants’ names when making contact, handwritten researcher signatures on the introductory letter, pre-questionnaire contact, placing more relevant and easier-to-answer questions near the beginning of the questionnaire and having the initial approach coming from a university rather than from a governmental or commercial organisation

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call