From: A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies
 |  | Data Collection Method | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
 | Postal | Face-to-Face | Telephone | Mixed |
Evaluated Retention Method, reference number | Average increase in retention rate, proportion (95% CI) | Average increase in retention rate, proportion (95% CI) | Average increase in retention rate, proportion (95% CI) | Average increase in retention rate, proportion (95% CI) |
Repeat Questionnaires | Â | Â | Â | Â |
2 Questionniares Posted | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Doody[22]* | 0.08 (0.08, 0.08) | Â | Â | Â |
Eagan[37] | 0.18 (0.17, 0.19) | Â | Â | Â |
Hoffman[40] | 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) | Â | Â | Â |
Rimm[31] | 0.16 (0.16, 0.17) | Â | Â | Â |
Ullman[48] | 0.04 (0.03, 0.06) | Â | Â | Â |
3 Questionniares Posted | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Clarke[36] | 0.18 (0.15, 0.22) | Â | Â | Â |
White[33]* | 0.06 (0.04, 0.08) | Â | Â | Â |
6 Questionnaires Posted | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Calle[35] | 0.37 (0.37, 0.38) | Â | Â | Â |
Russell[46] | 0.23 (0.23, 0.23) | Â | Â | Â |
Alternative Methods of Data Collection | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Postal Questionnaires | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Garcia[38] | Â | Â | 0.01 (0.01, 0.02) | Â |
Mills[43] | Â | 0.17 (0.15, 0.19) | Â | Â |
Face-to-Face Interviews | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Lissner[41] | Â | 0.18 (0.16, 0.21) | Â | Â |
Tolus so[47] | Â | Â | 0.02 (0.02, 0.02) | Â |
Telephone Interviews | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Boys[34] | 0.01 (0.01, 0.03) | Â | Â | Â |
Calle[35] | 0.02 (0.02, 0.02) | Â | Â | Â |
Michaud[42] | 0.17 (0.16, 0.18) | Â | Â | Â |
Russell[46] | 0.02 (0.02, 0.02) | Â | Â | Â |
0.01 (0.01, 0.01) | Â | Â | Â | |
0.05 (0.05, 0.05) | Â | Â | Â | |
0.08 (0.08, 0.09) | Â | Â | Â | |
Mixed (Postal, Telephone & Face-to-Face) Novo[44] | Â | 0.42 (0.39, 0.44) | Â | Â |