Effect of paper quality on the response rate to a postal survey: A randomised controlled trial. [ISRCTN32032031]

BACKGROUND: Response rates to surveys are declining and this threatens the validity and generalisability of their findings. We wanted to determine whether paper quality influences the response rate to postal surveys METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to all members of the British Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE). Recipients were randomised to receiving the questionnaire printed on standard quality paper or high quality paper. RESULTS: The response rate for the recipients of high quality paper was 43/195 (22%) and 57/194 (29%) for standard quality paper (relative rate of response 0.75, 95% CI 0.33–1.05, p = 0.1 CONCLUSION: The use of high quality paper did not increase response rates to a questionnaire survey of gynaecologists affiliated to an endoscopic society

Scratch lottery tickets are a poor incentive to respond to mailed questionnaires

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that the enclosure of money with a mailed questionnaire increases the response rate significantly. We evaluated scratch lottery tickets as an alternative to cash. METHODS: 1500 randomly selected Norwegians between the ages of 40 and 65 years were sent a short questionnaire. 250 received one lottery scratch ticket worth 20 Norwegian kroner (approximately 3 US$) together with the questionnaire, 250 received two scratch tickets, and 250 were promised two scratch tickets if they replied within one week. A fourth group of 250 persons received a 50 kroner banknote with the questionnaire. The remaining 500 letters served as controls. RESULTS: The overall response rate after 6 weeks was 77%. Logistic regression analysis showed that only the 50 kroner group had a response rate that was statistically significantly higher than the controls (p < 0.0001). It was also significantly higher than that in any of the other incentive groups (p < 0.0001, p < 0.004 and p < 0.0001 respectively). Female sex (p < 0.001) and age (p < 0.002) increased the response rate significantly. CONCLUSION: It is possible that the recipients scratched their cards before completing the questionnaire, and that it was a disincentive for the majority that they did not win anything. Lottery scratch tickets are no substitute for cash as an incentive to respond to a questionnaire

A randomised controlled trial to determine the effect on response of including a lottery incentive in health surveys [ISRCTN32203485]

BACKGROUND: Postal questionnaires are an economical and simple method of data collection for research purposes but are subject to non-response bias. Several studies have explored the effect of monetary and non-monetary incentives on response. Recent meta-analyses conclude that financial incentives are an effective way of increasing response rates. However, large surveys rarely have the resources to reward individual participants. Three previous papers report on the effectiveness of lottery incentives with contradictory results. This study aimed to determine the effect of including a lottery-style incentive on response rates to a postal health survey. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: North and West Birmingham. 8,645 patients aged 18 or over randomly selected from registers of eight general practices (family physician practices). Intervention: Inclusion of a flyer and letter with a health questionnaire informing patients that returned questionnaires would be entered into a lottery-style draw for £100 of gift vouchers. Control: Health questionnaire accompanied only by standard letter of explanation. Main outcome measures: Response rate and completion rate to questionnaire. RESULTS: 5,209 individuals responded with identical rates in both groups (62.1%). Practice, patient age, sex and Townsend score (a postcode based deprivation measure) were identified as predictive of response, with higher response related to older age, being female and living in an area with a lower Townsend score (less deprived). CONCLUSION: This RCT, using a large community based sample, found that the offer of entry into a lottery style draw for £100 of High Street vouchers has no effect on response rates to a postal health questionnaire

SWI/SNF and Asf1 Independently Promote Derepression of the DNA Damage Response Genes under Conditions of Replication Stress

The histone chaperone Asf1 and the chromatin remodeler SWI/SNF have been separately implicated in derepression of the DNA damage response (DDR) genes in yeast cells treated with genotoxins that cause replication interference. Using genetic and biochemical approaches, we have tested if derepression of the DDR genes in budding yeast involves functional interplay between Asf1 and SWI/SNF. We find that Asf1 and SWI/SNF are both recruited to DDR genes under replication stress triggered by hydroxyurea, and have detected a soluble complex that contains Asf1 and the Snf2 subunit of SWI/SNF. SWI/SNF recruitment to DDR genes however does not require Asf1, and deletion of Snf2 does not affect Asf1 occupancy of DDR gene promoters. A checkpoint engagement defect is sufficient to explain the synthetic effect of deletion of ASF1 and SNF2 on derepression of the DDR genes in hydroxyurea-treated cells. Collectively, our results show that the DDR genes fall into a class in which Asf1 and SWI/SNF independently control transcriptional induction

Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners' educational priorities in European countries

PURPOSE: To assess how general practitioners (GPs) from European countries prioritized their genetic educational needs according to their geographic, sociodemographic, and educational characteristics. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey, random and total samples of GPs in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom), mailed questionnaires; Outcome: Genetic Educational Priority Scale (30 items; six subscores). RESULTS: A total 1168 GPs answered. Priorities differed (P < 0.001) but were consistently ranked across the countries. Previous education had a marginal effect on priorities. Women gave higher priorities than men to Genetics of Common Disorders (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.8), Psychosocial and Counseling Issues (ORadj, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), and Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues (ORadj, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), but lower than men to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (ORadj, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9). Older physicians gave higher priorities to Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations (ORadj, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), and to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (ORadj: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), compared with their younger colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Expressed genetic educational needs vary according to the countries and sociodemographics. In accordance, training could be more focused on genetics of common disorders and on how to approach genetic risk in clinical practice rather than on ethics, new technologies, or basic concepts