OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials that collect data using patient-completed questionnaires are prone to missing data. Our objective was to determine whether giving patients a resource use log (RUL) at baseline would improve the odds of completing questions in a follow-up resource use questionnaire (RUQ) and to identify patients' views on RUL's usefulness and acceptability. METHODS: The RUL study was a randomized controlled trial and qualitative study nested within a larger randomized controlled trial (the Arthroplasty Pain Experience Study trial). Eighty-five patients were randomized at baseline to receive or not receive an RUL. At 3-month follow-up, all participants received a postal RUQ. We created dummy variables for 13 resource use categories indicating whether complete information had been given for each category. We compared the completion rates between arms by using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. We explored patients' experience of using the RUL by interviewing a different subsample of Arthroplasty Pain Experience Study patients (n = 24) at 2- to 4-week follow-up. RESULTS: At 3 months, 74 of the 85 (87% in each arm) patients returned the RUQ. Patients in the RUL arm were 3.5 times more likely to complete the National Health Service community-based services category (P = 0.08). The RUL was positively received by patients and was generally seen as a useful memory aid. CONCLUSIONS: The RUL is a useful and acceptable tool in reducing the amount of missing data for some types of resource use.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials that collect data using patient-completed questionnaires are prone to missing data. Our objective was to determine whether giving patients a resource use log (RUL) at baseline would improve the odds of completing questions in a follow-up resource use questionnaire (RUQ) and to identify patients' views on RUL's usefulness and acceptability. METHODS: The RUL study was a randomized controlled trial and qualitative study nested within a larger randomized controlled trial (the Arthroplasty Pain Experience Study trial). Eighty-five patients were randomized at baseline to receive or not receive an RUL. At 3-month follow-up, all participants received a postal RUQ. We created dummy variables for 13 resource use categories indicating whether complete information had been given for each category. We compared the completion rates between arms by using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. We explored patients' experience of using the RUL by interviewing a different subsample of Arthroplasty Pain Experience Study patients (n = 24) at 2- to 4-week follow-up. RESULTS: At 3 months, 74 of the 85 (87% in each arm) patients returned the RUQ. Patients in the RUL arm were 3.5 times more likely to complete the National Health Service community-based services category (P = 0.08). The RUL was positively received by patients and was generally seen as a useful memory aid. CONCLUSIONS: The RUL is a useful and acceptable tool in reducing the amount of missing data for some types of resource use.
Authors: Amanda L Lewis; Grace J Young; Lucy E Selman; Caoimhe Rice; Clare Clement; Cynthia A Ochieng; Paul Abrams; Peter S Blair; Christopher Chapple; Cathryn Ma Glazener; Jeremy Horwood; John S McGrath; Sian Noble; Gordon T Taylor; J Athene Lane; Marcus J Drake Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Caroline Greenan; Lynn Murphy; Ly-Mee Yu; Patrick G Kehoe; Elizabeth Coulthard; Philip Bath; Robert Stewart; Rob Jones; Anne Corbett; Alan Thomas; Peter Connelly; Frank Arrojo; Rachel Canning; Sylvia Wallach; Catherine Henderson; Bernadette McGuinness; Mike O'Sullivan; Clive Holmes; Martin Knapp; Clive Ballard; Peter Passmore Journal: Trials Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jo Worthington; Hilary Taylor; Paul Abrams; Sara T Brookes; Nikki Cotterill; Sian M Noble; Tobias Page; K Satchi Swami; J Athene Lane; Hashim Hashim Journal: Trials Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.279
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: Caroline Ellis-Hill; Fergus Gracey; Sarah Thomas; Catherine Lamont-Robinson; Peter W Thomas; Elsa M R Marques; Mary Grant; Samantha Nunn; Robin P I Cant; Kathleen T Galvin; Frances Reynolds; Damian F Jenkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 2.692