Kevin Pickering
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Kevin Pickering has a total of 13 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ara Darzi
Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK
1 shared publication - Christina Atchison
School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
1 shared publication - Christl Ann Donnelly
Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
1 shared publication - Deborah Ashby
School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
1 shared publication - Galini Pantelidou
Ipsos, London, United Kingdom
1 shared publication - Graham S. Cooke
Department of infectious disease, Imperial College London, London, UK
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 9 January 2025
- Published by JMIR Publications Inc. in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- Vol. 11 (1) , e60022
Strategies to Increase Response Rate and Reduce Nonresponse Bias in Population Health Research: Analysis of a Series of Randomized Controlled Experiments during a Large COVID-19 Study
Background: High response rates are needed in population-based studies, as nonresponse reduces effective sample size and bias affects accuracy and decreases the generalizability of the study findings. Objective: We tested different strategies to improve response rate and reduce nonresponse bias in a national population–based COVID-19 surveillance program in England, United Kingdom. Methods: Over 19 rounds, a random sample of individuals aged 5 years and older from the general population in England were invited by mail to complete a web-based questionnaire and return a swab for SARS-CoV-2 testing. We carried out several nested randomized controlled experiments to measure the impact on response rates of different interventions, including (1) variations in invitation and reminder letters and SMS text messages and (2) the offer of a conditional monetary incentive to return a swab, reporting absolute changes in response and relative response rate (95% CIs). Results: Monetary incentives increased the response rate (completed swabs returned as a proportion of the number of individuals invited) across all age groups, sex at birth, and area deprivation with the biggest increase among the lowest responders, namely teenagers and young adults and those living in more deprived areas. With no monetary incentive, the response rate was 3.4% in participants aged 18‐22 years, increasing to 8.1% with a £10 (US $12.5) incentive, 11.9% with £20 (US $25.0), and 18.2% with £30 (US $37.5) (relative response rate 2.4 [95% CI 2.0-2.9], 3.5 [95% CI 3.0-4.2], and 5.4 [95% CI 4.4-6.7], respectively). Nonmonetary strategies had a modest, if any, impact on response rate. The largest effect was observed for sending an additional swab reminder (SMS text message or email). For example, those receiving an additional SMS text message were more likely to return a completed swab compared to those receiving the standard email-SMS approach, 73.3% versus 70.2%: percentage difference 3.1% (95% CI 2.2%-4.0%). Conclusions: Conditional monetary incentives improved response rates to a web-based survey, which required the return of a swab test, particularly for younger age groups. Used in a selective way, incentives may be an effective strategy for improving sample response and representativeness in population-based studies.
- 9 January 2025
- Published by JMIR Publications Inc. in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- Vol. 11 (1) , e60022
Open AccessStrategies to Increase Response Rate and Reduce Nonresponse Bias in Population Health Research: Analysis of a Series of Randomized Controlled Experiments during a Large COVID-19 Study
Background: High response rates are needed in population-based studies, as nonresponse reduces effective sample size and bias affects accuracy and decreases the generalizability of the study findings. Objective: We tested different strategies to improve response rate and reduce nonresponse bias in a national population–based COVID-19 surveillance program in England, United Kingdom. Methods: Over 19 rounds, a random sample of individuals aged 5 years and older from the general population in England were invited by mail to complete a web-based questionnaire and return a swab for SARS-CoV-2 testing. We carried out several nested randomized controlled experiments to measure the impact on response rates of different interventions, including (1) variations in invitation and reminder letters and SMS text messages and (2) the offer of a conditional monetary incentive to return a swab, reporting absolute changes in response and relative response rate (95% CIs). Results: Monetary incentives increased the response rate (completed swabs returned as a proportion of the number of individuals invited) across all age groups, sex at birth, and area deprivation with the biggest increase among the lowest responders, namely teenagers and young adults and those living in more deprived areas. With no monetary incentive, the response rate was 3.4% in participants aged 18‐22 years, increasing to 8.1% with a £10 (US $12.5) incentive, 11.9% with £20 (US $25.0), and 18.2% with £30 (US $37.5) (relative response rate 2.4 [95% CI 2.0-2.9], 3.5 [95% CI 3.0-4.2], and 5.4 [95% CI 4.4-6.7], respectively). Nonmonetary strategies had a modest, if any, impact on response rate. The largest effect was observed for sending an additional swab reminder (SMS text message or email). For example, those receiving an additional SMS text message were more likely to return a completed swab compared to those receiving the standard email-SMS approach, 73.3% versus 70.2%: percentage difference 3.1% (95% CI 2.2%-4.0%). Conclusions: Conditional monetary incentives improved response rates to a web-based survey, which required the return of a swab test, particularly for younger age groups. Used in a selective way, incentives may be an effective strategy for improving sample response and representativeness in population-based studies.