Literature DB >> 14980747

Follow-up by mail in clinical trials: does questionnaire length matter?

Phil Edwards1, Ian Roberts, Peter Sandercock, Chris Frost.   

Abstract

In large clinical trials where outcome assessment is possible using questionnaires, it may be more cost-effective to mail them to patients than to conduct interviews in-person. However, nonresponse to mailed questionnaires reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of questionnaire length on response rates. We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, the reference lists of relevant trials, and we contacted the authors of eligible trials to ask about unpublished data. For each trial identified, we used logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio for response per one page increase in the number of pages included in the questionnaire. We pooled the regression coefficients in a random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity among the coefficients was assessed using a chi-square test at a 5% significance level. We specified a priori that the reduction in the odds of response per one page increase would be greatest among trials comparing relatively short questionnaires. We used meta regression to examine the relationships between the regression coefficients, the length of the questionnaires used in each trial, and other study characteristics. A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were identified where participants were allocated to questionnaires of differing lengths and where the number of pages used was known. There was significant heterogeneity between the regression coefficients estimated from each trial. In meta regression, most of the heterogeneity was explained by variation in the length of the questionnaires used in each trial. Among trials in which the shortest questionnaire was a postcard, the odds of response were more than halved for each additional page used (0.39; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.45). In the remaining trials, pooled effect sizes were much smaller. In trials of one page compared with either two or three pages, the odds of response per one page increase was 1.01 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.24). For one page compared with four or more pages, and for two or more pages compared with longer alternatives, the odds ratios per one page increase were 0.90 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.98) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. There were no statistically significant associations between trial results and other study characteristics. It appears that response can be increased by using a shorter questionnaire. Moderate changes to the length of shorter questionnaires will be more effective than moderate changes to the length of longer questionnaires. If a choice of follow-up questionnaire exists for a clinical trial, the shorter one should be used. If a new follow-up questionnaire is to be designed, it should be made as short as possible without compromising the data collection requirements of the trial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14980747     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.013

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


  45 in total

1.  The international intravitreal bevacizumab safety survey.

Authors:  F Ziemssen; S Grisanti; K U Bartz-Schmidt
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  RSAS-3: validation of a very brief measure of Religious Commitment for use in health research.

Authors:  Andrea D Clements; Tifani R Fletcher; Natalie A Cyphers; Anna V Ermakova; Beth Bailey
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2015-02

3.  Development and validation of the brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire.

Authors:  T H Taft; M Riehl; J B Sodikoff; P J Kahrilas; L Keefer; B Doerfler; J E Pandolfino
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 3.598

4.  Measuring Acceptance of Sleep Difficulties: The Development of the Sleep Problem Acceptance Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kristoffer Bothelius; Susanna Jernelöv; Mats Fredrikson; Lance M McCracken; Viktor Kaldo
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2015-11-01       Impact factor: 5.849

5.  Shortening a survey and using alternative forms of prenotification: impact on response rate and quality.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; Enrique Rey; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah Jenkins; Kandace Lackore; Nicholas J Talley; Richard G Locke
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Response rates to a mailed survey of a representative sample of cancer patients randomly drawn from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry: a randomized trial of incentive and length effects.

Authors:  Bridget J Kelly; Taressa K Fraze; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Evaluating a Modular Design Approach to Collecting Survey Data Using Text Messages.

Authors:  Brady T West; Dirgha Ghimire; William G Axinn
Journal:  Surv Res Methods       Date:  2015

Review 8.  Questionnaires in clinical trials: guidelines for optimal design and administration.

Authors:  Phil Edwards
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 9.  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

10.  Developing Digital Tools for Remote Clinical Research: How to Evaluate the Validity and Practicality of Active Assessments in Field Settings.

Authors:  Jennifer Ferrar; Gareth J Griffith; Caroline Skirrow; Nathan Cashdollar; Nick Taptiklis; James Dobson; Fiona Cree; Francesca K Cormack; Jennifer H Barnett; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.