Skip to main content
. 2006 Jan-Feb;121(1):74–83. doi: 10.1177/003335490612100114

Table 4.

Comparison of response rates by state and type of contact, PRAMS, 1996–2001

graphic file with name 14-Shulmantable4.jpg

*

Statistically significant (p < 0.05) increasing or decreasing trend over time period from 1996 to 2001.

a

Trend analysis not conducted on follow-up mail response. Florida, Washington, and West Virginia did not send a third mailing in 1996 through 2001.

b

Response rate represents the percentage of all women in the sample who participated. Rates by type of contact may not total to overall rate due to rounding.

c

Contact rate represents the percentage of women who were contacted, regardless of whether they participated.

d

Cooperation rate represents the percentage of contacted women who participated.

e

Alaska conducted telephone follow-up in 1997 through 2001, but not in 1996. The Alaska telephone response trend analysis was conducted on years 1997–2001.

f

New York excludes New York City.

g

Oklahoma breakout of mail information unavailable in 1996.

h

Simple average over states. Mail 1 and follow-up mail response rate averages exclude Oklahoma.