OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic reminders (ERs) to improve the response rates and time to response of postal questionnaires in a health research setting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) was nested within a multicenter RCT of yoga for lower back pain. Participants who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile phone number were randomized to receive an ER or no reminder (controls) on the day they were due to receive a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-five participants (32 males and 93 females) mean age 46 (standard deviation: 11, range: 20-65) were randomized to ER (n=62) or controls (n=63). Overall 85.6% of participants returned postal questionnaires (87.1% ER group and 84.1% from controls). No significant differences were found between the two groups for response rate (difference between groups=3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-10, 16; P=0.64) or time to response after adjusting for age, gender, and treatment allocation (χ(2) ([3df])=7.10; P=0.07). CONCLUSION: In the present RCT, we found little evidence for the effectiveness of ERs to increase response rates or time to respond for the return of questionnaires in this study population group.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic reminders (ERs) to improve the response rates and time to response of postal questionnaires in a health research setting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) was nested within a multicenter RCT of yoga for lower back pain. Participants who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile phone number were randomized to receive an ER or no reminder (controls) on the day they were due to receive a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five participants (32 males and 93 females) mean age 46 (standard deviation: 11, range: 20-65) were randomized to ER (n=62) or controls (n=63). Overall 85.6% of participants returned postal questionnaires (87.1% ER group and 84.1% from controls). No significant differences were found between the two groups for response rate (difference between groups=3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-10, 16; P=0.64) or time to response after adjusting for age, gender, and treatment allocation (χ(2) ([3df])=7.10; P=0.07). CONCLUSION: In the present RCT, we found little evidence for the effectiveness of ERs to increase response rates or time to respond for the return of questionnaires in this study population group.
Authors: Samantha Teague; George J Youssef; Jacqui A Macdonald; Emma Sciberras; Adrian Shatte; Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz; Chris Greenwood; Jennifer McIntosh; Craig A Olsson; Delyse Hutchinson Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 4.615
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
Authors: V C Brueton; F Stevenson; C L Vale; S P Stenning; J F Tierney; S Harding; I Nazareth; S Meredith; G Rait Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 2.692