Background: Collecting patient-reported data via postal questionnaires is a common and frequently used technique. Selection bias may occur through lost data from nonrespondents. This study investigated differences in characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents of a postal breast cancer survey. Patients and Methods: The investigation was based on a cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey for the mandatory annual routine (re-)certification of accredited breast centers in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2010. Out of 4,444 patients meeting the inclusion criteria who gave their consent to participate, 3,856 respondents sent back a questionnaire and 588 nonrespondents did not. Using logistic regression, differences between respondents and nonrespondents regarding information gathered through hospital staff concerning age, affected breast, UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) staging and grading, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) classification, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and type of surgery were assessed. Results: Very young and very old patients sent back their questionnaire significantly less frequently, as did patients who showed a later cancer stage and poorer general health and those who underwent mastectomy. Conclusion: Differences exist between respondents and nonrespondents with regard to age, disease, and therapy characteristics that need to be considered for the interpretation and generalizability of survey results due to selection bias.

Keywords:
Questionnaire survey, Nonrespondent, Bias, Breast cancer
1.
Gillham B: Developing a Questionnaire, 2nd edition. London, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008, pp. 18-84.
2.
Johnson TP, Wislar JS: Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA 2012;307:1805-1806.
3.
Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R: Survey Methodology. New York, NY, Wiley, 2004, pp. 40-243.
4.
Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J: Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:635-641.
5.
Rupp I, Triemstra M, Boshuizen HC, Jacobi CE, Dinant HJ, van den Bos GA: Selection bias due to non-response in a health survey among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Public Health 2002;12:131-135.
6.
Ellenberg JH: Selection bias in observational and experimental studies. Stat Med 1994;13:557-567.
7.
Holle R, Hochadel M, Reitmeir P, Meisinger C, Wichmann HE; KORA Group: Prolonged recruitment efforts in health surveys: effects on response, costs, and potential bias. Epidemiology 2006;17:639-643.
8.
National Research Council, Panel on a Research Agenda for the Future of Social Science Data Collection, Committee on National Statistics, Division on Behavioral and Social Science and Education; Tourangeau R, Plewes TJ (eds): Nonresponse in Social Science Surveys: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC, The National Academy Press, 2013, pp. 30-32.
9.
Splieth CH, Steffen H, Welk A, Schwahn C: Responder and nonresponder analysis for a caries prevention program. Caries Res 2005;39:269-271.
10.
Melton LJ 3rd, Dyck PJ, Karnes JL, O'Brien PC, Service FJ: Non-response bias in studies of diabetic complications: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:341-348.
11.
Korkeila K, Suominen S, Ahvenainen J, Ojanlatva A, Rautava P, Helenius H, Koskenvuo M: Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. Eur J Epidemiol 2001;17:991-999.
12.
Jacobsen BK, Thelle DS: The Tromsø Heart Study: responders and non-responders to a health questionnaire, do they differ? Scand J Soc Med 1988;16:101-104.
13.
Van Loon AJ, Tijhuis M, Picavet HS, Surtees PG, Ormel J: Survey non-response in the Netherlands: effects on prevalence estimates and associations. Ann Epidemiol 2003;13:105-110.
14.
Launer LJ, Wind AW, Deeg DJ: Nonresponse pattern and bias in a community-based cross-sectional study of cognitive functioning among the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:803-812.
15.
Christensen AI, Ekholm O, Gray L, Glümer C, Juel K: What is wrong with non-respondents? Alcohol-, drug- and smoking related mortality and morbidity in a 12-year follow up study of respondents and non-respondents in the Danish Health and Morbidity Survey. Addiction 2015;110;1505-1512.
16.
Tolonen H, Helakorpi S, Talala K, Helasoja V, Martelin T, Prättälä R: 25-year trends and socio-demographic differences in response rates: Finnish adult health behaviour survey. Eur J Epidemiol 2006;21:409-415.
17.
Tolonen H, Laatikainen T, Helakorpi S, Talala K, Martelin T, Prattala R: Marital status, educational level and household income explain part of the excess mortality of survey non-respondents. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:69-76.
18.
Tolonen H, Dobson A, Kulathinal S; WHO MONICA Project: Effect on trend estimates of the difference between survey respondents and non-respondents: results from 27 populations in the WHO MONICA Project. Eur J Epidemiol 2005;20:887-898.
19.
Etter JF, Perneger TV: Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1123-1128.
20.
Rönmark E, Lundqvist A, Lundbäck B, Nyström L: Non-responders to a postal questionnaire on respiratory symptoms and diseases. Eur J Epidemiol 1999;15:293-299.
21.
Hoeymans N, Feskens EJ, van den Bos GA, Kromhout D: Non-response bias in a study of cardiovascular diseases, functional status and self-rated health among elderly men. Age Ageing 1998;27:35-40.
22.
Nummela O, Sulander T, Helakorpi S, Haapola I, Uutela A, Heinonen H, Valve R, Fogelholm M: Register-based data indicated nonparticipation bias in a health study among aging people. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1418-1425.
23.
Beard CM, Lane AW, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd: Comparison of respondents and nonrespondents in an osteoporosis study. Ann Epidemiol 1994;4:398-403.
24.
Van den Akker M, Buntinx F, Metsemakers JF, Knottnerus JA: Morbidity in responders and non-responders in a register-based population survey. Fam Pract 1998;15:261-263.
25.
Adams MM, Scherr PA, Branch LG, Hebert LE, Cook NR, Lane AM, Brock DB, Evans DA, Taylor JO: A comparison of elderly participants in a community survey with nonparticipants. Public Health Rep 1990;105:617-622.
26.
Sugisawa H, Kishino H, Sugihara Y, Okabayashi H, Shibata H: Comparison of characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents in a national survey of Japanese elderly using six year follow-up study. Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi 1999;46:551-562.
27.
Milne JS, Maule MM, Williamson J: Method of sampling in a study of older people with a comparison of respondents and non-respondents. Brit J Prev Soc Med 1971;25:37-41.
28.
Katz SJ, Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Schwartz K, Liu L, Deapen D, Salem B, Lakhani I, Morrow M: Patient involvement in surgery treatment decisions for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5526-5533.
29.
Arndt V, Merx H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H, Brenner H: Persistence of restrictions in quality of life from the first to the third year after diagnosis in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4945-4953.
30.
Ahmed RL, Prizment A, Lazovich D, Schmitz KH, Folsom AR: Lymphedema and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: the Iowa Women's Health Study. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5689-5696.
31.
Madigan MP, Troisi R, Potischman N, Brogan D, Gammon MD, Malone KE, Brinton LA: Characteristics of respondents and non-respondents from a case-control study of breast cancer in younger women. Int J Epidemiol 2000;29:793-798.
32.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F: GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2013. globocan.iarc.fr.
33.
Pfaff H, Freise D, Mager G, Schrappe M: Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF): Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Einbindung des Patienten als Kotherapeuten. Sankt August, Asgard-Verlag, 2003.
34.
Dillmann DA: Mail and Telephone Surveys. The Total Design Method. New York, NY, Wiley, 1978.
35.
Kowalski C, Würstlein R, Steffen P, Harbeck N, Pfaff H: Four years of surveying patients as part of the certification/re-certification of breast centers in North Rhine-Westphalia. Senologie 2010;7:24-28.
36.
Miller DC, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Montie JE, Pimentel H, Sandler HM, McLaughlin WP, Wei JT: Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality-of-life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2772-2780.
37.
Dorr DA, Jones SS, Burns L, Donelly SM, Brunker CP, Wilcox A, Clayton PD: Use of health-related, quality-of-life metrics to predict mortality and hospitalizations in community-dwelling seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:667-673.
38.
Worthen J, Waterman BR, Davidson PA, Lubowitz JH: Limitations and sources of bias in clinical knee cartilage research. Arthroscopy 2012;28:1315-1325.
39.
Der Wiel AB, van Exel E, de Craen AJ, Gussekloo J, Lagaay AM, Knook DL, Westendorp RG: A high response is not essential to prevent selection bias: results from the Leiden 85-plus study. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:1119-1125.
40.
Al-Shahi R, Vousden C, Warlow C; Scottish Intracranial Vascular Malformation Study (SIVMS) Steering Committee: Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study. BMJ 2005;331:942.
41.
Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, 4th ed. New York, NY, Springer, 2010.
© 2016 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.