OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of electronic reminders (ERs) on response rate and time to response for the return of postal questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This open randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the University of York. Participants who were taking part in an established RCT and who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile telephone number were eligible to take part in the study. The intervention group received ERs on the day they were expected to receive postal questionnaires. RESULTS:One hundred forty-eight participants (19 male and 129 female) aged 47±11 (range, 19-65) years were studied. About 89.2% of participants returned postal questionnaires. There was no difference in questionnaire response rates in control (64 of 74 [86.5%]) vs. intervention (68 of 74 [91.9%]), groups (relative risk=1.063, 95% confidence interval: 0.949-1.189). Median questionnaire time to response was 4 days less in the intervention group (10.0±0.2; range, 10-14 days) compared with the control group (14.0±1.4; range, 10-23 days) (χ(2)(1df)=5.27, P=0.022). CONCLUSION: ERs are useful tools for reducing participant time to response for postal questionnaires. We found little evidence for an effect of ERs on response rate for postal questionnaires.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of electronic reminders (ERs) on response rate and time to response for the return of postal questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This open randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the University of York. Participants who were taking part in an established RCT and who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile telephone number were eligible to take part in the study. The intervention group received ERs on the day they were expected to receive postal questionnaires. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight participants (19 male and 129 female) aged 47±11 (range, 19-65) years were studied. About 89.2% of participants returned postal questionnaires. There was no difference in questionnaire response rates in control (64 of 74 [86.5%]) vs. intervention (68 of 74 [91.9%]), groups (relative risk=1.063, 95% confidence interval: 0.949-1.189). Median questionnaire time to response was 4 days less in the intervention group (10.0±0.2; range, 10-14 days) compared with the control group (14.0±1.4; range, 10-23 days) (χ(2)(1df)=5.27, P=0.022). CONCLUSION: ERs are useful tools for reducing participant time to response for postal questionnaires. We found little evidence for an effect of ERs on response rate for postal questionnaires.
Authors: Rachel Y Moon; Fern R Hauck; Ann L Kellams; Eve R Colson; Nicole L Geller; Timothy C Heeren; Stephen M Kerr; Michael J Corwin Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Stephen Brealey; Matthew Northgraves; Lucksy Kottam; Ada Keding; Belen Corbacho; Lorna Goodchild; Cynthia Srikesavan; Saleema Rex; Charalambos P Charalambous; Nigel Hanchard; Alison Armstrong; Andrew Brooksbank; Andrew Carr; Cushla Cooper; Joseph Dias; Iona Donnelly; Catherine Hewitt; Sarah E Lamb; Catriona McDaid; Gerry Richardson; Sara Rodgers; Emma Sharp; Sally Spencer; David Torgerson; Francine Toye; Amar Rangan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.014
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