Abstract

Background: Postal questionnaires are frequently used in randomised controlled trials to collect outcome data on participants; however, poor response can introduce bias, affect generalisability and validity, and reduce statistical power. The objective of this study was to assess whether a pen and/or social incentive text cover letter sent with a postal follow-up questionnaire increased response rates in a trial. Method: A two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial was embedded within the OTIS host trial. Participants due their 12-month (final) follow-up questionnaire were randomised to be sent: a pen; a social incentive text cover letter; both; or neither. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants in each group who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to return, completeness of the questionnaire, necessity of a reminder letter, and the cost effectiveness. Results: The overall 12-month questionnaire response rate was 721 out of 755 (95.5%). Neither the pen nor social incentive cover letter had a statistically significant effect on response rate: pen 95.2% vs. no pen 95.8%, adjusted OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.80; p=0.77); social incentive cover letter 95.2% vs. no social incentive cover letter 95.8%, adjusted OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.69, p=0.63). No statistically significant differences were observed between either of the intervention groups on time to response, need for a reminder or completeness. Therefore, neither intervention was cost-effective. Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference in response rates associated with the inclusion of a pen and/or social incentive cover letter with the final follow-up postal questionnaire of the host trial. However, when these results are combined with previous SWATs, the meta-analysis evidence remains that including a pen increases response rates. The social incentive cover letter warrants further investigation to determine effectiveness. Trial registration: ISRCTN22202133 (21st June 2020).

Highlights

  • Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to assess effectiveness of treatment options and to inform care decisions[1], yet only a few hundred studies exist to assess the effectiveness of different methods to improve retention or recruitment into RCTs2.Trial methodologists and funders have highlighted the need to evaluate participant recruitment and retention strategies in order to provide evidence on which to base decisions around the design and conduct of RCTs3.Several systematic reviews report on the topic of retention strategies, including improving response rates to questionnaires[4,5,6,7]

  • Any reports and responses or comments on the article can be found at the end of the article. When these results are combined with previous study within a trial (SWAT), the meta-analysis evidence remains that including a pen increases response rates

  • The response rate was identical in the pen only group (184/192, 95.8%), social incentive cover letter only group (181/189, 95.8%) and control group (182/190, 95.8%)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to assess effectiveness of treatment options and to inform care decisions[1], yet only a few hundred studies exist to assess the effectiveness of different methods to improve retention or recruitment into RCTs2.Trial methodologists and funders have highlighted the need to evaluate participant recruitment and retention strategies in order to provide evidence on which to base decisions around the design and conduct of RCTs3.Several systematic reviews report on the topic of retention strategies, including improving response rates to questionnaires[4,5,6,7]. The objective of this study was to assess whether a pen and/or social incentive text cover letter sent with a postal follow-up questionnaire increased response rates in a trial. Method: A two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial was embedded within the OTIS host trial Participants due their 12-month (final) follow-up questionnaire were randomised to be sent: a pen; a social incentive text cover letter; both; or neither. Secondary outcomes were: time to return, completeness of the questionnaire, necessity of a reminder letter, and the cost effectiveness. No statistically significant differences were observed between either of the intervention groups on time to response, need for a reminder or completeness. Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference in response rates associated with the inclusion of a pen and/or social incentive cover letter with the final follow-up postal questionnaire of the host trial

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call