Prasanna Partha Sarathy1, Lucksy Kottam2, Adwoa Parker1, Stephen Brealey3, Elizabeth Coleman1, Ada Keding1, Alex Mitchell1, Matthew Northgraves1, David Torgerson1, Amar Rangan4. 1. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. 2. STRIVE, The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Marton Road, Middlesbrough, TS4 3BW, UK. 3. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. Electronic address: stephen.brealey@york.ac.uk. 4. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK; STRIVE, The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Marton Road, Middlesbrough, TS4 3BW, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess whether timing of short messaging service (SMS) reminders improved postal questionnaire return rates from participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A Study Within A Trial (SWAT) embedded in a multicenter RCT evaluating three treatments for the frozen shoulder. Participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomized to either prenotification SMS on the day of the questionnaire mail-out or postnotification SMS 4 days after questionnaire mail-out for the 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned a valid questionnaire. A systematic review was undertaken to identify other embedded trials to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 269 participants, 122/135 (90.4%) returned a valid questionnaire in the prenotification arm and 119/134 (88.8%) in the postnotification arm (difference of -1.6%; 95% CI of difference: -8.9%, 5.7%). There was no difference in time to response (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.34) or need for additional reminders (OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.17). Meta-analysis of two RCTs showed no difference in response rates between prenotification and postnotification reminders (OR = 0.78 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.45). CONCLUSION: Timing of SMS reminders did not improve response rates and time to response or affect the need for additional reminders.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess whether timing of short messaging service (SMS) reminders improved postal questionnaire return rates from participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A Study Within A Trial (SWAT) embedded in a multicenter RCT evaluating three treatments for the frozen shoulder. Participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomized to either prenotification SMS on the day of the questionnaire mail-out or postnotification SMS 4 days after questionnaire mail-out for the 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned a valid questionnaire. A systematic review was undertaken to identify other embedded trials to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 269 participants, 122/135 (90.4%) returned a valid questionnaire in the prenotification arm and 119/134 (88.8%) in the postnotification arm (difference of -1.6%; 95% CI of difference: -8.9%, 5.7%). There was no difference in time to response (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.34) or need for additional reminders (OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.17). Meta-analysis of two RCTs showed no difference in response rates between prenotification and postnotification reminders (OR = 0.78 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.45). CONCLUSION: Timing of SMS reminders did not improve response rates and time to response or affect the need for additional reminders.
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