Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 26;18(1):e0280911.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280911. eCollection 2023.

Assessing targeted invitation and response modes to improve survey participation in a diverse New York City panel: Healthy NYC

Shabitri Dasgupta  1 , Sharon E Perlman  1 , Amber Levanon Seligson  1 , Sarah E Dumas  1 , Kacie Seil  1 , Tashema Bholanath  1
Affiliations

Assessing targeted invitation and response modes to improve survey participation in a diverse New York City panel: Healthy NYC

Shabitri Dasgupta et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Healthy NYC is an innovative survey panel created by the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) that offers a cost-effective mechanism for collecting priority and timely health information. Between November 2020 and June 2021, invitations for six different surveys were sent to Healthy NYC panelists by postal mail, email, and text messages. Panelists had the option to complete surveys online or via paper survey.

Methods: We analyzed whether panelists varied by sociodemographic characteristics based on the contact mode they provided and the type of invitation that led to their response using logistic regression models. Poisson regression models were used to determine whether the number of invitations received before participating in a survey was associated with sociodemographic characteristics.

Results: Younger age and higher education were positively associated with providing an email or text contact. Furthermore, age, race, and income were significant predictors for invitation modes that led to a survey response. Black panelists had 72% greater odds (OR 1.72 95% CI: 1.11-2.68) of responding to a mail invite and 33% lesser odds (OR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.83) of responding to an email invite compared with White panelists. Additionally, in five of the six surveys, more than half of the respondents completed surveys after two invites. Email invitations garnered the highest participation rates.

Conclusions: We recommend using targeted invitation modes as an additional strategy to improve participation in panels. For lower-income panelists who do not provide an email address, it may be reasonable to offer additional response options that do not require internet access. Our study's findings provide insight into how panels can tailor outreach to panelists, especially among underrepresented groups, in the most economical and efficient ways.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Process of recruiting NYC residents to Healthy NYC panel.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Types of contact information provided by panelists and types of invitations sent to panelists.
The types of initial invitations and reminders that sampled panelists received for any given survey were determined by the types of contact information they provided when they registered for Healthy NYC. *Panelists who provided a cellphone number were asked if this was a smartphone that they could use to take surveys and were then asked to consent to receive text messages. †Due to budgetary and operational limitations, not all panelists who provided a mailing address received mailed paper surveys or push-to-web invitations if they provided any other contact information.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Invite mode that led to response across the six surveys (n = 4,729).
Fig 4
Fig 4. Number of invites participants received before response (by the total number of respondents for that survey).
Fig 5
Fig 5. Percentage of invite mode that led to responses by month with overall response rate.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Levanon Seligson A, Alroy KA, Sanderson M, Maleki AN, Fernandez S, Aviles A, et al.. Adapting Survey Data Collection to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experiences From a Local Health Department. Am J Public Health. 2021. Dec 1;111(12):2176–85. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306515 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alroy KA, Crossa A, Dominianni C, Sell J, Bartley K, Sanderson M, et al.. Population-Based Estimates of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like Illness, COVID-19 Illness, and Rates of Case Ascertainment, Hospitalizations, and Deaths-Noninstitutionalized New York City Residents, March-April 2020. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2021. Nov 2;73(9):1707–10. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab038 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Magas Iva, Norman Christina. Impacts of COVID-19 on Mental Health in New York City [Internet]. New York City: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2021. Dec. (Epi Data Brief). Report No.: 130. Available from: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief130.pdf
    1. Dobosh Katherine, Tiberio Jenny, Tenzin Yangchen Dongchung Tamar Marder, Wen Qin Deng Kinjia Hinterland, et al.. Inequities in Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic, New York City [Internet]. New York City: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2021. May. (Epi Data Brief). Report No.: 123. Available from: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief123.pdf
    1. Kypri K, Samaranayaka A, Connor J, Langley JD, Maclennan B. Non-response bias in a web-based health behaviour survey of New Zealand tertiary students. Prev Med. 2011. Oct 1;53(4):274–7. - PubMed