Literature DB >> 12392866

The end-of-study patient survey: methods influencing response rate in the AVID Trial.

Ellen Graham Renfroe1, Geoff Heywood, Lynne Foreman, Eleanor Schron, Judy Powell, Christina Baessler, Deborah Warwick, Mary Morris, Alfred Hallstrom.   

Abstract

Patient surveys are commonly distributed at the end of a multicenter clinical trial. This Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) substudy prospectively explored the relationship between methods used in distributing a survey and the quantity of responses received. AVID was a multicenter, randomized trial comparing survival in arrhythmia patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs versus implantable defibrillators. At study termination, a patient satisfaction survey was mailed to the 664 surviving participants. Questions included reasons for study participation, study benefits and problems and quality of care. Survey mailings were stratified by four factors in a 2x2x2x2 factorial design: delivery mode (overnight vs. regular mail), certificate of appreciation, timing of administration ("early" vs. "late") and cover letter signed by a physician versus coordinator. Patients were randomly assigned to received one of 16 combinations of these four factors. Clinical characteristics and response rates were evaluated. Patients were more likely to return surveys delivered by overnight mail (75% vs. 68%, p=0.04), with no certificate of appreciation enclosed (75% vs. 68%, p=0.05) and administered close to the time of study closeout (79% vs. 72%, p=0.085). Compared to the 184 nonrespondents, the 456 (71%) respondents were older, Caucasian, lived with others, were high school graduates and less likely to have Medicare/Medicaid or HMO insurance (p<0.03). Physician recommendation was the most common reason cited for trial participation. Main benefits included increased knowledge of their medical condition and improved health. Reported problems included parking, transportation and excess clinic wait time. This randomized study demonstrated that methods of patient survey distribution affect the survey return rate. Additional studies should explore mechanisms for maximizing return rates. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12392866     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00225-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  9 in total

1.  The conclusion that 'ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects' is not supported by the data.

Authors:  Edward Shalts; Samuel Shiflett
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08

3.  Best practice guidance for the use of strategies to improve retention in randomized trials developed from two consensus workshops.

Authors:  Valerie Brueton; Sally P Stenning; Fiona Stevenson; Jayne Tierney; Greta Rait
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials.

Authors:  Claire Planner; Peter Bower; Ailsa Donnelly; K Gillies; Katrina Turner; Bridget Young
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 5.  Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Authors:  Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

Review 6.  Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

Authors:  Valerie C Brueton; Jayne Tierney; Sally Stenning; Seeromanie Harding; Sarah Meredith; Irwin Nazareth; Greta Rait
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-12-03

7.  Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

Authors:  Katie Gillies; Anna Kearney; Ciara Keenan; Shaun Treweek; Jemma Hudson; Valerie C Brueton; Thomas Conway; Andrew Hunter; Louise Murphy; Peter J Carr; Greta Rait; Paul Manson; Magaly Aceves-Martins
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-06

Review 8.  Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  V C Brueton; J F Tierney; S Stenning; S Meredith; S Harding; I Nazareth; G Rait
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  The effect of using social pressure in cover letters to improve retention in a longitudinal health study: an embedded randomised controlled retention trial.

Authors:  Sarah Cotterill; Kelly Howells; Sarah Rhodes; Peter Bower
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.279

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.