169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18507819)
1. Do postage stamps versus pre-paid envelopes increase responses to patient mail surveys? A randomised controlled trial.
Lavelle K; Todd C; Campbell M
BMC Health Serv Res; 2008 May; 8():113. PubMed ID: 18507819
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A mail survey of United States hematologists and oncologists: a comparison of business reply versus stamped return envelopes.
Streiff MB; Dundes L; Spivak JL
J Clin Epidemiol; 2001 Apr; 54(4):430-2. PubMed ID: 11297894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effects on response rates and costs of stamps vs business reply in a mail survey of physicians.
Urban N; Anderson GL; Tseng A
J Clin Epidemiol; 1993 May; 46(5):455-9. PubMed ID: 8501471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Response rates to surveys with self-addressed, stamped envelopes versus a self-addressed label.
Groves BW; Olsson RH
Psychol Rep; 2000 Jun; 86(3 Pt 2):1226-8. PubMed ID: 10932585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of stamped reply envelopes and timing of newsletter delivery on response rates of mail survey: a randomised controlled trial in a prospective cohort study.
Wakabayashi C; Hayashi K; Nagai K; Sakamoto N; Iwasaki Y
BMJ Open; 2012; 2(5):. PubMed ID: 22952162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.
Edwards PJ; Roberts I; Clarke MJ; Diguiseppi C; Wentz R; Kwan I; Cooper R; Felix LM; Pratap S
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2009 Jul; 2009(3):MR000008. PubMed ID: 19588449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial.
Starr K; McPherson G; Forrest M; Cotton SC
Trials; 2015 Jul; 16():295. PubMed ID: 26152519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Survey methods and response rates among rural community dwelling older adults.
Edelman LS; Yang R; Guymon M; Olson LM
Nurs Res; 2013; 62(4):286-91. PubMed ID: 23817286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires.
Edwards P; Roberts I; Clarke M; DiGuiseppi C; Pratap S; Wentz R; Kwan I; Cooper R
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; (2):MR000008. PubMed ID: 17443629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four different strategies for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in the general population (CoV-Surv Study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled trial.
Deckert A; Anders S; de Allegri M; Nguyen HT; Souares A; McMahon S; Boerner K; Meurer M; Herbst K; Sand M; Koeppel L; Siems T; Brugnara L; Brenner S; Burk R; Lou D; Kirrmaier D; Duan Y; Ovchinnikova S; Marx M; Kräusslich HG; Knop M; Bärnighausen T; Denkinger C
Trials; 2021 Jan; 22(1):39. PubMed ID: 33419461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A controlled trial of envelope colour for increasing response rates in older women.
Mitchell N; Hewitt CE; Torgerson DJ;
Aging Clin Exp Res; 2011 Jun; 23(3):236-40. PubMed ID: 20811168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients - a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423].
Harrison RA; Cock D
BMC Health Serv Res; 2004 Nov; 4(1):31. PubMed ID: 15537429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of response rate and time according to the survey methods used: a randomized controlled trial.
Yi SW; Hong JS; Ohrr H; Yi JJ
Eur J Epidemiol; 2005; 20(2):131-5. PubMed ID: 15792278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of numbering of return envelopes on participation, explicit refusals, and bias: experiment and meta-analysis.
Perneger TV; Cullati S; Rudaz S; Agoritsas T; Schmidt RE; Combescure C; Courvoisier DS
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Jan; 14():6. PubMed ID: 24428941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A randomized trial of the impact of certified mail on response rate to a physician survey, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Del Valle ML; Morgenstern H; Rogstad TL; Albright C; Vickrey BG
Eval Health Prof; 1997 Dec; 20(4):389-406. PubMed ID: 10183331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effect of two mailing strategies on the response to a survey of physicians.
Shiono PH; Klebanoff MA
Am J Epidemiol; 1991 Sep; 134(5):539-42. PubMed ID: 1897510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of a postal survey and mixed-mode survey using a questionnaire on patients' experiences with breast care.
Zuidgeest M; Hendriks M; Koopman L; Spreeuwenberg P; Rademakers J
J Med Internet Res; 2011 Sep; 13(3):e68. PubMed ID: 21946048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review.
Edwards P; Roberts I; Clarke M; DiGuiseppi C; Pratap S; Wentz R; Kwan I
BMJ; 2002 May; 324(7347):1183. PubMed ID: 12016181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluating telephone follow-up of a mail survey of community pharmacies.
Westrick SC; Mount JK
Res Social Adm Pharm; 2007 Jun; 3(2):160-82. PubMed ID: 17561218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A randomized trial of mail and email recruitment strategies for a physician survey on clinical trial accrual.
Murphy CC; Craddock Lee SJ; Geiger AM; Cox JV; Ahn C; Nair R; Gerber DE; Halm EA; McCallister K; Skinner CS
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):123. PubMed ID: 32429848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
