Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, A.
Right arrow Articles by Slattery, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, A.
Right arrow Articles by Slattery, M. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Am J Epidemiol 2004; 160:85-90.
Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health


PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Contacting Controls: Are We Working Harder for Similar Response Rates, and Does It Make a Difference?

A. Rogers, M. A. Murtaugh , S. Edwards and M. L. Slattery

From the Health Research Center, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Although obtaining high response rates is critical to epidemiologic studies, effort to achieve response rates is undocumented. The authors used three population-based case-control studies conducted in Utah between October 1991 and February 2003 to examine effort required for both initial contact and determination of final status. Differences in lifestyle characteristics between easy- or more-difficult-to-interview female controls were evaluated. Letter, phone, and in-person contacts were recorded to determine contact effort. Regarding effort required to achieve a final outcome, the number of contacts increased from eight to 14 over the 12-year study period. Compared with those in study A (conducted in 1991–1994), controls in studies B and C were twice as likely to require seven or more phone calls and controls in study B were twice as likely to require one or more in-person visit. Hispanic controls in study C were more likely than non-Hispanic White controls to receive an in-person visit and a noncontact letter. Compared with those more difficult to contact, those easy to contact were more likely to be overweight and less likely to have a family history of cancer. The amount of effort required to achieve similar or slightly lower response rates increased over time. This finding may in part depend on demographic characteristics of the population studied.

data collection; sampling studies; selection bias

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Environment and BehaviorHome page
J. M. Oakes, A. Forsyth, M. O. Hearst, and K. H. Schmitz
Recruiting Participants for Neighborhood Effects Research: Strategies and Outcomes of the Twin Cities Walking Study
Environment and Behavior, November 1, 2009; 41(6): 787 - 805.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
R W Kobrosly, J R Meliker, and J O Nriagu
Automobile industry occupations and bladder cancer: a population-based case-control study in southeastern Michigan, USA
Occup. Environ. Med., October 1, 2009; 66(10): 650 - 656.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
L. M. Hines, B. Risendal, M. L. Slattery, K. B. Baumgartner, A. R. Giuliano, and T. Byers
Differences in Estrogen Receptor Subtype According to Family History of Breast Cancer among Hispanic, but not Non-Hispanic White Women
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2008; 17(10): 2700 - 2706.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. D. Steffen, L. N. Kolonel, A. M. Nomura, F. S. Nagamine, K. R. Monroe, and L. R. Wilkens
The Effect of Multiple Mailings on Recruitment: The Multiethnic Cohort
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2008; 17(2): 447 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
C. Sweeney, S. L. Edwards, K. B. Baumgartner, J. S. Herrick, L. E. Palmer, M. A. Murtaugh, A. Stroup, and M. L. Slattery
Recruiting Hispanic Women for a Population-based Study: Validity of Surname Search and Characteristics of Nonparticipants
Am. J. Epidemiol., November 15, 2007; 166(10): 1210 - 1219.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
C. Sweeney, R. K. Wolff, T. Byers, K. B. Baumgartner, A. R. Giuliano, J. S. Herrick, M. A. Murtaugh, W. S. Samowitz, and M. L. Slattery
Genetic Admixture among Hispanics and Candidate Gene Polymorphisms: Potential for Confounding in a Breast Cancer Study?
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2007; 16(1): 142 - 150.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
C. Sweeney, K. Curtin, M. A. Murtaugh, B. J. Caan, J. D. Potter, and M. L. Slattery
Haplotype analysis of common vitamin d receptor variants and colon and rectal cancers.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2006; 15(4): 744 - 749.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
K. J. Smith, S. M. O'Brien, B. M. Smithers, D. C. Gotley, P. M. Webb, A. C. Green, D. C. Whiteman, and for the Study of Digestive Health
Interactions among Smoking, Obesity, and Symptoms of Acid Reflux in Barrett's Esophagus
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2005; 14(11): 2481 - 2486.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
C. Sweeney, M. A. Murtaugh, K. B. Baumgartner, T. Byers, A. R. Giuliano, J. S. Herrick, R. Wolff, B. J. Caan, and M. L. Slattery
Insulin-Like Growth Factor Pathway Polymorphisms Associated with Body Size in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Women
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2005; 14(7): 1802 - 1809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.