Laura Clark1, Sarah Ronaldson1, Lisa Dyson1, Catherine Hewitt1, David Torgerson2, Joy Adamson1. 1. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, Heslington University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK. 2. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, Heslington University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK. Electronic address: david.torgerson@york.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of sending electronic prompts to randomized controlled trial participants to return study questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A "trial within a trial" embedded within a study determining the effectiveness of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (DOC) screening on smoking cessation. Those participants taking part in DOC who provided a mobile phone number and/or an electronic mail address were randomized to either receive an electronic prompt or no electronic prompt to return a study questionnaire. The results were combined with two previous studies in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 437 participants were randomized: 226 to the electronic prompt group and 211 to the control group. A total of 285 (65.2%) participants returned the follow-up questionnaire: 157 (69.5%) in the electronic prompt group and 128 (60.7%) in the control group [difference 8.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.11%, 17.7%; P = 0.05]. The mean time to response was 23 days in the electronic prompt group and 33 days in the control group (hazard ratio = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.105, 1.47). The meta-analysis of all three studies showed an increase in response rate of 7.1% (95% CI: 0.8%, 13.3%). CONCLUSION: The use of electronic prompts increased response rates and reduces the time to response.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of sending electronic prompts to randomized controlled trial participants to return study questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A "trial within a trial" embedded within a study determining the effectiveness of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (DOC) screening on smoking cessation. Those participants taking part in DOC who provided a mobile phone number and/or an electronic mail address were randomized to either receive an electronic prompt or no electronic prompt to return a study questionnaire. The results were combined with two previous studies in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 437 participants were randomized: 226 to the electronic prompt group and 211 to the control group. A total of 285 (65.2%) participants returned the follow-up questionnaire: 157 (69.5%) in the electronic prompt group and 128 (60.7%) in the control group [difference 8.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.11%, 17.7%; P = 0.05]. The mean time to response was 23 days in the electronic prompt group and 33 days in the control group (hazard ratio = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.105, 1.47). The meta-analysis of all three studies showed an increase in response rate of 7.1% (95% CI: 0.8%, 13.3%). CONCLUSION: The use of electronic prompts increased response rates and reduces the time to response.
Authors: Adam R Glassman; Wesley T Beaulieu; Cynthia R Stockdale; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; Leanne T Labriola; Michele Melia; Kristina Oliver; Jennifer K Sun Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Liz Cook; Matthew J Northgraves; Caroline Fairhurst; Sarah Ronaldson; David J Torgerson; Jonathan Kent; Mike Reed Journal: Trials Date: 2019-05-08 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: Lucy E Bradshaw; Alan A Montgomery; Hywel C Williams; Joanne R Chalmers; Rachel H Haines Journal: Trials Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 2.279