Search

Background: Many studies rely on self-reported height and weight. While a substantial body of literature exists on misreporting of height and weight, little exists on improving accuracy. The aim of this study was to determine, using an experimental design and a comparative approach, whether the accuracy of self-reported height and weight data can be increased by improving how these questions are asked in surveys, drawing on the relevant evidence from the psychology and survey research literatures. Methods: Two surveys from two separate studies were used to test our hypotheses (Science Survey, n = 1,200; Eating Behaviours Survey, n = 200). Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions, four of which were designed to improve the accuracy of the self-reported height and weight data ("preamble"), and two of which served as the control conditions ("no preamble"). Four hypotheses were tested: (H1) survey participants read a preamble prior to being asked their height and weight will report lower heights and higher weights than those not read a preamble; (H2) the impact of question-wording (i.e., preamble vs. no preamble) on self-reported weight will be greater for participants with higher BMIs; (H3) the impact of question-wording on height will be greater for older participants; (H4) either version of the weight question – standard or "weight-specific"—may result in participants reporting more accurate self-reported weight. One-way MANOVA was conducted to test Hypothesis 1; two-way analysis of variance were conducted to test Hypothesis 2; moderation analysis was used to test Hypothesis 3; independent samples t-test was conducted to test Hypothesis 4. Results: None of the hypotheses was supported. Conclusions: This paper provides an important starting point from which to inform further work exploring how question wording can improve self-reported measurement of height and weight. Future research should explore how question preambles may or may not operationalise hypothesised underlying mechanisms, the sensitivity or intrusiveness of height and weight questions, individual beliefs about one's height and weight, and survey context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of a temporary deferral often leads to donor lapse. Contributing factors may be donors not knowing when their deferral ends or not being contacted and asked to return. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a reminder message notifying donors that their deferral is coming to an end in increasing donors' postdeferral return rates. We evaluated the optimal time, content, and mode of delivery of the reminder message. Study Design and Methods: Two studies were conducted with deferred donors. Study 1: donors (n = 1676) were randomized to be sent a reminder message at one of three time points (4 weeks before, 1 week before, and 1 week after their deferral ended) or to a no contact control condition. Study 2: donors (n = 1973) were randomized to three message type conditions (emotive email, nonemotive email, nonemotive SMS). Attempted return behavior was extracted (appointments, attendances) at 1 month. Results: In Study 1, being sent the reminder message increased odds of donors attempting to return within 3 months compared with the control group (OR:2.01). Sending the reminder 1 week before the deferral ended was the most effective time point. In Study 2, the nonemotive message increased the odds of attempting to return compared with the emotive message (OR:1.38). No differences were found between email and SMS messages. Discussion Sending a reminder message to donors when their deferral is coming to an end is a simple, effective, and cost‐effective method to retain donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Receiving a temporary deferral has been shown to negatively affect donor retention. One contributing factor for low donor return may be poor understanding of why the deferral has occurred. The aim of this study was to determine whether new educational materials‐a brochure, guided conversation, and follow‐up email‐increased deferred donors' knowledge about their donation eligibility, satisfaction with the deferral process, intention to return, and odds of rebooking another appointment. Study Design and Methods: A three‐arm cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of the educational materials compared to business as usual deferral procedures: (a) In‐center brochure and follow‐up email; (b) Email only; (c) Control. A survey was administered to a random sample of trial participants (n = 847). Results: Compared with the control condition, donors in the in‐center brochure and email condition were more knowledgeable about the end date of their deferral, and reported higher satisfaction with the deferral information provided, and had fewer questions and/or concerns about the deferral. Similar findings were observed when comparing the email only condition to the in‐center brochure and email condition. No differences were found in intention to return. Donors in the in‐center brochure plus email condition had increased odds (OR:1.385) of rebooking their next appointment compared to the combined email only and control conditions. Conclusions: The application of a deferral is often misunderstood by donors. Providing educational materials to donors can increase their understanding and may lead to increased retention of donors through rebooking of subsequent donations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]