Abstract
Objectives: To determine if the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) is a unique and valuable MCH data source and an effective mechanism for states to collect MCH data, and to assess if recent changes in it have improved efficiency and flexibility. Methods: Each component of the PRAMS methodology is described: sampling and stratification, data collection, questionnaire, and data management and weighting. To assess effectiveness, we calculated response rates, contact rates, cooperation rates, refusal rates, and questionnaire completion rates. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between maternal and infant characteristics and the likelihood of response. Four criteria were defined to measure improvement in PRAMS functioning. Results: Overall response rates for the 11 states in 1996 ranged from 66% to 80%. Cooperation rates were high (85–99%), with contact rates somewhat lower (73–87%). Response rates were higher for women who were older, White, married, had more education, were first-time mothers, and had a normal-birthweight infant. In all states, parity and education were the most consistent predictors of response, followed by marital status and race. Between 1988–1990 and 1996–1999, the number of states and areas participating in PRAMS increased from 6 to 23, response rates improved, and the time for a state to start data collection and to obtain a weighted dataset both decreased. Conclusions: PRAMS is a unique and valuable MCH data source. The mail/telephone methodology used in PRAMS is an effective means of reaching most women who have recently given birth in the 11 states examined; however, some population subgroups are not reached as well as others. The system has become more efficient and flexible over time and more states now participate.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Kelly J, Mosher W, Duffer A, Kinsey S. Plan and operation of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 1, No. 36. National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.
Potter F, Iannacchione V, Mosher W, Mason R, Kavee J. Sample design, sampling weights, imputation, and variance estimation in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 124. National Center for Health Statistics, 1998.
Sanderson M, Scott C, Gonzalez JF. The 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey: Methods and response characteristics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 125. National Center for Health Statistics, 1998.
Graves EJ, Kozak LJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey: Annual summary, 1996. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 13, No. 140. National Center for Health Statistics, 1998.
Koonin LM, MacKay AP, Berg CJ, Atrash JK, Smith JC. Pregnancy-related mortality surveillance—United States, 1987–1990. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, August 8, 1997. MMWR 1999;46(SS-4):17–36.
Adams MM, Shulman HB, Bruce C, Hogue C, Brogan D, the PRAMS Working Group. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System: design, questionnaire, data collection and response rates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1991;5:333–46.
CDC PRAMS model surveillance protocol. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996.
Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978.
Brambilla D, McKinlay S. A comparison of responses to mailed questionnaires and telephone interviews in a mixed mode health survey. Am J Epidemiol 1987;126:962–71.
Fiset L, Milgrom P, Tarnai J. Dentists' response to financial incentives in a mail survey of malpractice liability experience. J Public Health Dent 1994;54(2):68–72.
Sutherland H, Beaton M, Mazer R, Kriukov V, Boyd NF. A randomized trial of the total design method for the postal follow-up of women in a cancer prevention trial. Eur J Cancer Prev 1996;5:165–8.
Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J. Increasing response rates in physicians' mail surveys: an experimental study. Am J Public Health 1989;79:638–9.
Asch D, Christakis N. Different response rates in a trial of two envelope styles in mail survey research. Epidemiology 1994;5:364–5.
Etter JF, Perneger TV, Rougemont A. Does sponsorship matter in patient satisfaction surveys? a randomized trial. Med Care 1996;34:327–35.
Fox R, Crask M, Kim J. Mail survey response rate: a meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Q 1988;52:467–91.
Spry V, Hovell M, Sallis J, Hofsteter CR, Elder JP, Molgaard CA. Recruiting survey respondents to mailed surveys: controlled trials of incentives and prompts. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130:166–72.
Marrett L, Kreiger N, Dodds L, Hilditch S. The effect on response rates of offering a small incentive with a mailed questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 1992;2:745–53.
Perneger T, Etter J, Rougemont A. Randomized trial of use of a monetary incentive and a reminder card to increase the response rate to a mailed health survey. Am J Epidemiol 1993;138:714–22.
James J, Bolstein R. The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opinion Q 1990;54:346–61.
Camunas C, Alward R, Vecchione E. Survey response rates to a professional association mail questionnaire. J N Y State Nurs Assoc 1990;21:7–9.
Church A. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Q 1993;57:62–79.
Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. MMWR 1988; 37(S-5):2–12.
CDC PRAMS model surveillance protocol. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gilbert, B.C., Shulman, H.B., Fischer, L.A. et al. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Methods and 1996 Response Rates from 11 States. Matern Child Health J 3, 199–209 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325421844
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325421844