Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a randomised controlled trial nested within a systematic review

被引:0
|
作者
Woolf, Benjamin [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Edwards, Phil [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Dept Psychol Sci, 5 Priory Rd, Bristol, Avon, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Med Res Council, Integrat Epidemiol Unit, Bristol, Avon, England
[3] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Fac Epidemiol & Populat Hlth, London, England
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
关键词
Pre-notification; Randomised controlled trials; Questionnaire response;
D O I
10.1186/s12874-021-01462-z
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Missing outcome data can lead to bias in the results of systematic reviews. One way to address missing outcome data is by requesting the data from the trial authors, but non-response is common. One way to potentially improve response rates is by sending study participants advance communication. During the update of a systematic review examining the effect of pre-notification on response rates, study authors needed to be contacted for further information. This study was nested within the systematic review by randomising authors to receive a notification of the upcoming request for information. The objective was to test if pre-notification increased response rates. Methods: The participants were study authors included in the systematic review, whose studies were at unclear risk of bias. The intervention was a pre-notification of the request for further information, sent 1 day before the request. The outcome was defined as the proportion of authors who responded to the request for information. Authors were randomised by simple randomisation. Thirty three authors were randomised to the pre-notification arm, and 42 were randomised to the control arm. Authors were blinded to the possibility of an alternative condition. Results: All authors randomised were analysed. 14/33 (42.4%) authors in the pre-notification arm had returned responses to the questionnaire, and 18/42 (42.9%) in the control arm. There was no evidence of a difference between these groups (absolute difference = - 0.5, 95% CI (- 23.4 to 22.5%), p = 1). We received no complaints about receiving the pre-notification. Conclusions: This study's results do not support the hypothesis that pre-notification increases response from study authors being contacted for a request for more information. However, the study has a low power, and the results may not generalise to other contexts, methods of administering a pre-notification, or study populations.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a randomised controlled trial nested within a systematic review
    Benjamin Woolf
    Phil Edwards
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21
  • [2] SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires: a factorial design, randomised, controlled trial
    Starr, Kath
    McPherson, Gladys
    Forrest, Mark
    Cotton, Seonaidh
    [J]. TRIALS, 2015, 16
  • [3] SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires: a factorial design, randomised, controlled trial
    Kath Starr
    Gladys McPherson
    Mark Forrest
    Seonaidh Cotton
    [J]. Trials, 16
  • [4] SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial
    Kathryn Starr
    Gladys McPherson
    Mark Forrest
    Seonaidh C. Cotton
    [J]. Trials, 16
  • [5] SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial
    Starr, Kathryn
    McPherson, Gladys
    Forrest, Mark
    Cotton, Seonaidh C.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2015, 16
  • [6] Effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length and reminder on participation rate: a quasi-randomised controlled trial
    Marie Koitsalu
    Martin Eklund
    Jan Adolfsson
    Henrik Grönberg
    Yvonne Brandberg
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18
  • [7] Effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length and reminder on participation rate: a quasi-randomised controlled trial
    Koitsalu, Marie
    Eklund, Martin
    Adolfsson, Jan
    Gronberg, Henrik
    Brandberg, Yvonne
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2018, 18 : 3
  • [8] A randomized, embedded trial of pre-notification of trial participation did not increase recruitment rates to a falls prevention trial
    Arundel, Catherine
    Jefferson, Laura
    Bailey, Matthew
    Cockayne, Sarah
    Hicks, Kate
    Loughrey, Lorraine
    Rodgers, Sara
    Torgerson, David J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2017, 23 (01) : 73 - 78
  • [9] Pre-notification did not increase response rate in addition to follow-up: a randomized trial
    Hammink, Alice
    Giesen, Paul
    Wensing, Michel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 63 (11) : 1276 - 1278
  • [10] Provision of pen along with questionnaire does not increase the response rate to a postal survey: a randomised controlled trial
    Clark, TJ
    Khan, KS
    Gupta, JK
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2001, 55 (08): : 595 - 596