Cargando…

Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations

BACKGROUND: In a potential epidemic of an emerging infection, representative population-based serologic studies are required to determine the extent of immunity to the infectious agent, either from natural infection or vaccination. Recruitment strategies need to optimize response rates. METHODS: Wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ley, Catherine, Duan, Heying, Parsonnet, Julie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10363298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37481522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01992-8
_version_ 1785076594610536448
author Ley, Catherine
Duan, Heying
Parsonnet, Julie
author_facet Ley, Catherine
Duan, Heying
Parsonnet, Julie
author_sort Ley, Catherine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In a potential epidemic of an emerging infection, representative population-based serologic studies are required to determine the extent of immunity to the infectious agent, either from natural infection or vaccination. Recruitment strategies need to optimize response rates. METHODS: Within a seroepidemiologic study to determine the true burden of SARS-CoV2 infection in two Bay Area counties, we evaluated whether letter (L) or postcard (P) invitations with reminders were more effective at recruiting participant households. Using geographic, probability-based sampling, 9,999 representative addresses, split between Santa Clara and Solano counties, were randomized to receive an initial invitation (L or P); a randomized reminder mailing sent two weeks later to all non-respondents created four mailing type groups (L/L, L/P, P/L, P/P). Interested households provided contact information via survey to perform blood spot collection at home for testing and then receive SARS-CoV2 serology results. Comparison of demographics among respondents and non-respondents used census tract data. RESULTS: Receiving any reminder mailing increased household response rates from 4.2% to between 8–13% depending on mailing combination. Response rates from two letters were 71% higher than from two postcards (13.2% vs. 7.7%, OR = 1.83 [95% CI: 1.5–2.2]). Respondents were older, more educated and more likely white than non-respondents. Compared to Solano county, Santa Clara county had different demographics and increased household response rates (L/L: 15.7% vs 10.7%; P/P: 9.2% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.0001); the effect of mailing types, however, was the same (L/L vs. P/P: Santa Clara: OR = 1.83 [95% CI: 1.4–2.3]; Solano: OR = 1.84 [95% CI:1.4–2.5]). CONCLUSION: Letters, as both invitations and reminders, are a more effective recruitment tool than postcards and should be considered when seeking a representative population-based sample for serological testing. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-01992-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10363298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103632982023-07-24 Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations Ley, Catherine Duan, Heying Parsonnet, Julie BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: In a potential epidemic of an emerging infection, representative population-based serologic studies are required to determine the extent of immunity to the infectious agent, either from natural infection or vaccination. Recruitment strategies need to optimize response rates. METHODS: Within a seroepidemiologic study to determine the true burden of SARS-CoV2 infection in two Bay Area counties, we evaluated whether letter (L) or postcard (P) invitations with reminders were more effective at recruiting participant households. Using geographic, probability-based sampling, 9,999 representative addresses, split between Santa Clara and Solano counties, were randomized to receive an initial invitation (L or P); a randomized reminder mailing sent two weeks later to all non-respondents created four mailing type groups (L/L, L/P, P/L, P/P). Interested households provided contact information via survey to perform blood spot collection at home for testing and then receive SARS-CoV2 serology results. Comparison of demographics among respondents and non-respondents used census tract data. RESULTS: Receiving any reminder mailing increased household response rates from 4.2% to between 8–13% depending on mailing combination. Response rates from two letters were 71% higher than from two postcards (13.2% vs. 7.7%, OR = 1.83 [95% CI: 1.5–2.2]). Respondents were older, more educated and more likely white than non-respondents. Compared to Solano county, Santa Clara county had different demographics and increased household response rates (L/L: 15.7% vs 10.7%; P/P: 9.2% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.0001); the effect of mailing types, however, was the same (L/L vs. P/P: Santa Clara: OR = 1.83 [95% CI: 1.4–2.3]; Solano: OR = 1.84 [95% CI:1.4–2.5]). CONCLUSION: Letters, as both invitations and reminders, are a more effective recruitment tool than postcards and should be considered when seeking a representative population-based sample for serological testing. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-01992-8. BioMed Central 2023-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10363298/ /pubmed/37481522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01992-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ley, Catherine
Duan, Heying
Parsonnet, Julie
Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations
title Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations
title_full Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations
title_fullStr Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations
title_full_unstemmed Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations
title_short Recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations
title_sort recruitment into antibody prevalence studies: a randomized trial of postcards vs. letters as invitations
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10363298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37481522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01992-8
work_keys_str_mv AT leycatherine recruitmentintoantibodyprevalencestudiesarandomizedtrialofpostcardsvslettersasinvitations
AT duanheying recruitmentintoantibodyprevalencestudiesarandomizedtrialofpostcardsvslettersasinvitations
AT parsonnetjulie recruitmentintoantibodyprevalencestudiesarandomizedtrialofpostcardsvslettersasinvitations