Responsive survey design – a technique for managing nonresponse during the data collection stage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52556/2587-3873.2025.3(105).10Keywords:
sample, responsive survey design, non-responseAbstract
The risks and uncertainty associated with non-response justify the implementation of preventive measures to manage it from the survey design and data collection phase. Responsive design is a preventive technique that increases survey efficiency by using information obtained in the early stages. The paper aims to demonstrate how responsive design can be used to manage non-response during the data collection stage in order to ensure a representative sample size in this particular study. During the study planning, the calculated sample size was adjusted for a 25% non-response rate. At the initial stage, a two-phase responsive design was developed. The main priority was to obtain a representative sample, with the associated risk being a high total non-response rate (>25%). The monitored risk indicator was the total nonresponse rate across geographic regions. During data collection, a total nonresponse rate greater than 25% was recorded in 14 geographic regions, with an average of 66%. In the first phase of the responsive design, two reminder phone calls were made at a two-week interval. For regions that continued to show high non-response rates, the sample size was expanded by recalculating the number of questionnaires based on the 66% rate and by including institutions other than those initially selected. The application of the responsive design allowed the collection of a sufficient number of valid questionnaires. The application of responsive design made it possible to collect a sufficient number of valid questionnaires, enabling early risk management and compensation for non-response, and contributing to obtaining a representative sample for an accurate analysis of the studied phenomenon.
References
COOK, J. V., DICKINSON, H. O., ECCLES, M. P. Response Rates in Postal Surveys of Healthcare Professionals Between 1996 and 2005: An Observational Study. In: BMC Health Services Research, 2009, 9, p. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-160
MEYER, V. M. et al. Global Overview of Response Rates in Patient and Health Care Professional Surveys in Surgery: A Systematic Review. In: Annals of Surgery, 2022, 275(1), p. e75-e81. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004078
GROENEWEGEN, P. P., GREß, S., SCHÄFER, W. General Practitioners' Participation in a Large, Multicountry Combined General Practitioner-Patient Survey: Recruitment Procedures and Participation Rate. In: International Journal of Family Medicine, 2016, 2016, p. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4929432
BRTNIKOVA, M. et al. A Method for Achieving High Response Rates in National Surveys of U.S. Primary Care Physicians. In: PLoS ONE, 2018, 13(8), p. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202755
BASÍLIO, N. et al. Portuguese Primary Care Physicians' Response Rate in Surveys: A Systematic Review. In: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 2018, 64(3), p. 272-280. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.64.03.272
ADAM, M. A Step-by-Step Process on Sample Size Determination for Medical Research. In: Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2021, 28(2), p. 15-27. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2021.28.2.2
TOEPOEL, V., SCHONLAU, M. Dealing with Nonresponse: Strategies to Increase Participation and Methods for Postsurvey Adjustments. In: Mathematical Population Studies, 2017, 24(2), p. 79-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/08898480.2017.1299988
AGUSTINA, N. I. RSD Checklist for Practitioners, 2019, p. 1-9. Disponibil la: https://si.isr.umich.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/RSD-Checklist-for-Practi tioners.pdf
LEAVERTON, P. E., WILDER, F. V. Biostatistics. In: International Encyclopedia of Public Health, 2008, p. 301-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00330-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.



