Response rates in studies of couples coping with cancer: a systematic review

Recruiting couples for psychological studies can be challenging. This brief report is the first to examine the average couples' response rate and to systematically review the quality of reporting of couples' response rate in studies of couples coping with cancer. A systematic review (1980-...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health psychology Vol. 33; no. 8; p. 845
Main Authors: Dagan, Meirav, Hagedoorn, Mariët
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01.08.2014
Subjects:
Adaptation, Psychological
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Neoplasms - psychology
Spouses - psychology
ISSN:1930-7810, 1930-7810
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Recruiting couples for psychological studies can be challenging. This brief report is the first to examine the average couples' response rate and to systematically review the quality of reporting of couples' response rate in studies of couples coping with cancer. A systematic review (1980-2011) was conducted, including 83 studies meeting the inclusion criteria of being published in peer-reviewed journals, describing quantitative findings using a cross-sectional or longitudinal design. Overall reporting was unsatisfactory in more than half of the included studies. As a consequence, the couples' response rate (CRR; all analyzed couples divided by the number of eligible partnered patients/couples approached) could be calculated for only 33 samples. This CRR varied considerably across studies from 25% to 90% (CRRM = 58%, SD = 17%). The rates reported in the articles (M = 65%) were often higher than the average CRR (CRRM = 57%) of these samples. This systematic review revealed incomplete reporting of response rate. Therefore, it cannot be firmly concluded that the average CRR reported is representative for all studies on couples coping with cancer. Finally, the figures presented, which are often more favorable than the CRR, may create the impression that the sample is more representative of the target population than it actually is. This has consequences for implementing the findings of such studies into practice. The results are critically discussed, and recommendations for improvement are provided.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:1930-7810
1930-7810
DOI:10.1037/hea0000013