Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Methods and 1996 Response Rates from 11 States

  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  7. CDC PRAMS model surveillance protocol. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996.

  8. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J. Increasing response rates in physicians' mail surveys: an experimental study. Am J Public Health 1989;79:638–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Asch D, Christakis N. Different response rates in a trial of two envelope styles in mail survey research. Epidemiology 1994;5:364–5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Etter JF, Perneger TV, Rougemont A. Does sponsorship matter in patient satisfaction surveys? a randomized trial. Med Care 1996;34:327–35.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Church A. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Q 1993;57:62–79.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. MMWR 1988; 37(S-5):2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  23. CDC PRAMS model surveillance protocol. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

    Brenda Colley Gilbert, Holly B. Shulman & Mary M. Rogers

  2. TRW, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia

    Laurie A. Fischer

Authors
  1. Brenda Colley Gilbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Holly B. Shulman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurie A. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mary M. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brenda Colley Gilbert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325421844

Search

Navigation