Lucy Cureton1, Ioana R Marian2, Vicki S Barber2, Adwoa Parker3, David J Torgerson3, Sally Hopewell4,5. 1. Centre for Rehabilitation Research in Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Building, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. 3. York Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK. 4. Centre for Rehabilitation Research in Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. sally.hopewell@csm.ox.ac.uk. 5. Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Building, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. sally.hopewell@csm.ox.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of a person's name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient's name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires. METHODS: Using a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by acentral computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Use of a person's name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient's name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires. METHODS: Using a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by a central computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35.
Authors: Mary S Fewtrell; Kathy Kennedy; Atul Singhal; Richard M Martin; Andy Ness; Mijna Hadders-Algra; Berthold Koletzko; Alan Lucas Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Laura Clark; Sarah Ronaldson; Lisa Dyson; Catherine Hewitt; David Torgerson; Joy Adamson Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Rachel A Nakash; Jane L Hutton; Ellen C Jørstad-Stein; Simon Gates; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Thomas Williams; Sarah Alexander; James Blackstone; Floriana De Angelis; Nevin John; Anisha Doshi; Judy Beveridge; Marie Braisher; Emma Gray; Jeremy Chataway Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 2.728