The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Longitudinal studies are of aetiological and public health relevance but can be undermined by attrition. The aim of this paper was to identify effective retention strategies to increase participation in population-based cohort studies. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature to identify prospective population-based cohort studies with health outcomes in which retention strategies had been evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies published up to January 2011 were included. Eleven of which were randomized controlled trials of retention strategies (RCT). Fifty-seven percent of the studies were postal, 21% in-person, 14% telephone and 7% had mixed data collection methods. A total of 45 different retention strategies were used, categorised as 1) incentives, 2) reminder methods, repeat visits or repeat questionnaires, alternative modes of data collection or 3) other methods. Incentives were associated with an increase in retention rates, which improved with greater incentive value. Whether cash was the most effective incentive was not clear from studies that compared cash and gifts of similar value. The average increase in retention rate was 12% for reminder letters, 5% for reminder calls and 12% for repeat questionnaires. Ten studies used alternative data collection methods, mainly as a last resort. All postal studies offered telephone interviews to non-responders, which increased retention rates by 3%. Studies that used face-to-face interviews increased their retention rates by 24% by offering alternative locations and modes of data collection. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives boosted retention rates in prospective cohort studies. Other methods appeared to have a beneficial effect but there was a general lack of a systematic approach to their evaluation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults
Kleinstäuber, M., Witthöft, M., Steffanowski, A., van Marwijk, H., Hiller, W., & Lambert, M. J. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010628.pub2 · Cited by 11,335
(1980) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.56.657.530 · Cited by 1,827
Haynes, R. B., Taylor, D. W., & Sackett, D. L. (1979) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 1,627
Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires
Edwards, P. J., Roberts, I., Clarke, M. J., DiGuiseppi, C., Wentz, R., Kwan, I., Cooper, R., Felix, L. M., & Pratap, S. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000008.pub4 · Cited by 1,379
Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00075 · Cited by 991
Barriers to Participation in Randomised Controlled Trials
Ross, S., Grant, A., Counsell, C., Gillespie, W., Russell, I., & Prescott, R. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00141-9 · Cited by 907
Smith, G. D., Morris, J. N., & Shaw, M. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1465 · Cited by 813
Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A Meta-Analysis
Church, A. H. (1993) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269355 · Cited by 705
Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data
Wallace, B. C., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-80 · Cited by 659
Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation
(1999) · Practice Nursing · doi:10.12968/pnur.1999.10.12.4 · Cited by 638
Cited by
Jakob, R., Harperink, S., Rudolf, A. M., Fleisch, E., Haug, S., Mair, J. L., Salamanca-Sanabria, A., & Kowatsch, T. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/35371 · Cited by 446
Axes of a revolution: challenges and promises of big data in healthcare
Shilo, S., Rossman, H., & Segal, E. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0727-5 · Cited by 370
Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials
Brueton, V. C., Tierney, J., Stenning, S., Harding, S., Meredith, S., Nazareth, I., & Rait, G. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000032.pub2 · Cited by 279
Self-citationParticipant retention practices in longitudinal clinical research studies with high retention rates
Abshire, M., Dinglas, V. D., Cajita, M. I. A., Eakin, M. N., Needham, D. M., & Himmelfarb, C. D. (2017) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0310-z · Cited by 274
Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis
Brueton, V. C., Tierney, J. F., Stenning, S., Meredith, S., Harding, S., Nazareth, I., & Rait, G. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003821 · Cited by 253
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Booker, C. L., Harding, S., & Benzeval, M.
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2011-04-19
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 249-249
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104408964
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 66
- FWCI
- 10.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2458-11-249
- The paper
- Booker, C. L., Harding, S., & Benzeval, M. (2011). A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-249
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.