Literature DB >> 20547698

Use of an online questionnaire for follow-up of young female students recruited to a randomised controlled trial of chlamydia screening.

Helen Atherton1, Pippa Oakeshott, Adamma Aghaizu, Phillip Hay, Sally Kerry.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials often rely on questionnaires for follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: To compare response rates to an online and postal 12-month follow-up questionnaire on sexual health in female students who took part in a chlamydia screening trial.
METHODS: 1329 sexually active female students aged 16-27 were recruited from 12 universities and further education (FE) colleges. The 299 participants recruited between September 2004 and February 2005 were sent a postal questionnaire after 12 months. The 1030 participants recruited between March and December 2005 were contacted by email after 12 months and given a weblink to an online questionnaire.
RESULTS: The response rates to the 12-month questionnaire in the online and postal groups were 51% and 29% 4 weeks after follow-up commenced (RR 1.78 (1.47 to 2.14)) and 72% and 59% after 3 months. After adjusting for ethnicity, smoking, type of educational institution (university or FE college) and subject studied (health-related or not), the RR at 4 weeks was 1.88 (1.42 to 2.50). However, a prior telephone call to confirm contact details increased the response rate at 3 months in the postal group. In the online group, university students, those of white ethnicity and non-smokers had higher response rates at 4 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: In this young student population, an online questionnaire was quicker, cheaper and more efficient than a postal questionnaire. However, some FE college students did not have an email address. Telephone prompts and postal questionnaires were essential in obtaining a good response rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20547698     DOI: 10.1136/jech.2009.098830

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  5 in total

1.  Maximising retention in a longitudinal study of genital Chlamydia trachomatis among young women in Australia.

Authors:  Jennifer Walker; Christopher K Fairley; Eve Urban; Marcus Y Chen; Catriona Bradshaw; Sandra M Walker; Basil Donovan; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Kathleen McNamee; Marian Currie; Marie Pirotta; John Kaldor; Lyle C Gurrin; Hudson Birden; Veerakathy Harindra; Francis J Bowden; Suzanne Garland; Jane M Gunn; Jane S Hocking
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 3.295

2.  No evidence of response bias in a population-based childhood cancer survivor questionnaire survey - Results from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Authors:  Corina S Rueegg; Micòl E Gianinazzi; Gisela Michel; Marcel Zwahlen; Nicolas X von der Weid; Claudia E Kuehni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  Non-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase participant retention in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Adel Elfeky; Katie Gillies; Heidi Gardner; Cynthia Fraser; Timothy Ishaku; Shaun Treweek
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-09-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.