Kerry Bell1, Laura Clark2, Caroline Fairhurst2, Natasha Mitchell2, Elizabeth Lenaghan3, Jeanette Blacklock3, Janet Cushnaghan4, Cyrus Cooper4, Neil Gittoes5, Terence W O'Neill6, Lee Shepstone3, David J Torgerson2. 1. York Trials Unit, Health Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK. Electronic address: kerry.bell@york.ac.uk. 2. York Trials Unit, Health Sciences Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK. 3. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, MED Building, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. 4. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. 5. Department of Endocrinology, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Wolfson Endocrinology-University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Old QEH 3rd Floor, 3-05D & 2nd Floor, Birmingham B15 2TH. 6. Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9NT, UK; NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9NT, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of including a pen in postal questionnaires on response rate, necessity of reminders, time to response, and completeness of response to the primary outcome question (POQ). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) embedded within the screening of older women for prevention of fracture trial (SCOOP). Women, aged 70-75 years, were randomized to receive a pen with their questionnaire (n = 3,826) or to receive the questionnaire alone (n = 3,829). The results were combined with another embedded RCT in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A response rate of 92.4% was observed in the pen group compared with 91.3% in the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98, 1.37; P = 0.08). There was a difference in reminders required (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98; P = 0.02), time to response (hazard ratio = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = 0.01) and some difference in the completeness of response to the POQ (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.39; P = 0.05). The pooled OR from the meta-analysis for response rate was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.39; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of a pen with postal questionnaires potentially has a positive impact on response rates and the number of reminders required. There may be some reduction in time to response. Studies of different participant groups are needed to test the effectiveness over more diverse populations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of including a pen in postal questionnaires on response rate, necessity of reminders, time to response, and completeness of response to the primary outcome question (POQ). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) embedded within the screening of older women for prevention of fracture trial (SCOOP). Women, aged 70-75 years, were randomized to receive a pen with their questionnaire (n = 3,826) or to receive the questionnaire alone (n = 3,829). The results were combined with another embedded RCT in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A response rate of 92.4% was observed in the pen group compared with 91.3% in the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98, 1.37; P = 0.08). There was a difference in reminders required (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98; P = 0.02), time to response (hazard ratio = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = 0.01) and some difference in the completeness of response to the POQ (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.39; P = 0.05). The pooled OR from the meta-analysis for response rate was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.39; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of a pen with postal questionnaires potentially has a positive impact on response rates and the number of reminders required. There may be some reduction in time to response. Studies of different participant groups are needed to test the effectiveness over more diverse populations.
Authors: Kulsum Patel; Caroline L Watkins; Chris J Sutton; Emma-Joy Holland; Valerio Benedetto; Malcolm F Auton; David Barer; Kausik Chatterjee; Catherine E Lightbody Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-09-25
Authors: Katie Whiteside; Lydia Flett; Alex Mitchell; Caroline Fairhurst; Sarah Cockayne; Sara Rodgers; David Torgerson Journal: F1000Res Date: 2019-03-21
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: Sophie James; Adwoa Parker; Sarah Cockayne; Sara Rodgers; Caroline Fairhurst; David J Torgerson; Sarah Rhodes; Sarah Cotterill Journal: F1000Res Date: 2020-06-17