Literature DB >> 18093103

Response and non-response to postal questionnaire follow-up in a clinical trial--a qualitative study of the patient's perspective.

Rachel A Nakash1, Jane L Hutton, Sarah E Lamb, Simon Gates, Joanne Fisher.   

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: Many studies have investigated response issues to postal questionnaires in educational and market research surveys. Behavioural theories have been applied to survey research to understand response decisions. Little attention has focussed specifically on response issues to postal questionnaires used to collect data in clinical trials. This qualitative study, nested within an acute injury RCT, examines factors affecting response and non-response from the clinical trial participant's perspective.
METHODS: Qualitative study comprising of 22 semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of clinical trial participants. The sample consisted of 14 'responders' and 8 'non-responders' to postal questionnaire follow-up. Data were analysed using the Framework Method.
RESULTS: Prevalent reasons for responding to the questionnaires were the perceived personal benefit, commitment to the trial and perceived obligation to respond. Altruism was also a strong motivator. There was an association between the participant's understanding of the trial and their likelihood of responding. Most non-responders were happy with the trial and gave reasons for non-response such as being 'lazy' and 'forgetful'. Participants who considered themselves to be fully recovered were less likely to respond. There also emerged a relationship between response and treatment preference.
CONCLUSIONS: Saliency of the questionnaire topic is one of the most prevalent influences on response in clinical trials. This is not evident in the survey literature. Improvements in response rates may be gained by ensuring participants fully understand the trial procedures and stressing the importance of responding even if a full recovery has been made.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18093103     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  16 in total

1.  On the estimation of a binary response model in a selected population.

Authors:  Francesco Claudio Stingo; Elena Stanghellini; Rosa Capobianco
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 1.111

2.  Can incentives undermine intrinsic motivation to participate in epidemiologic surveys?

Authors:  Marika Wenemark; Asa Vernby; Annika Lindahl Norberg
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Reasons for and reservations about research participation in acutely injured adults.

Authors:  Elliane Irani; Therese S Richmond
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2015-01-19       Impact factor: 3.176

4.  Going the distance: overcoming challenges in recruitment and retention of Black and White women in multisite, longitudinal study of predictors of coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Jean C McSweeney; Christina M Pettey; Ellen P Fischer; Alisa Spellman
Journal:  Res Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 1.571

5.  Engagement and communication among participants in the ClinSeq Genomic Sequencing Study.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; Kendall L Umstead; Katie L Lewis; Laura K Koehly; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review.

Authors:  A O'Cathain; K J Thomas; S J Drabble; A Rudolph; J Hewison
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  "Do I really want to do this?" Longitudinal cohort study participants' perspectives on postal survey design: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Helen Harcombe; Sarah Derrett; Peter Herbison; David McBride
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: two randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Zarnie Khadjesari; Elizabeth Murray; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Ian R White; Jim McCambridge; Simon G Thompson; Paul Wallace; Christine Godfrey
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 9.  Questionnaires in clinical trials: guidelines for optimal design and administration.

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

10.  Lifestyle factors and experience of respiratory alarm symptoms in the general population.

Authors:  Lisa Maria Falk Sele; Kirubakaran Balasubramaniam; Sandra Elnegaard; Jens Søndergaard; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl
Journal:  BMJ Open Respir Res       Date:  2015-09-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.