Cargando…
Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone
BACKGROUND: Attrition, or dropout, is a problem faced by many online health interventions, potentially threatening the inferential value of online randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: In the context of a randomized controlled trial of an online weight management intervention, where 85% of the ba...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Gunther Eysenbach
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17567564 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.2.e16 |
_version_ | 1782134092694814720 |
---|---|
author | Couper, Mick P Peytchev, Andy Strecher, Victor J Rothert, Kendra Anderson, Julia |
author_facet | Couper, Mick P Peytchev, Andy Strecher, Victor J Rothert, Kendra Anderson, Julia |
author_sort | Couper, Mick P |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Attrition, or dropout, is a problem faced by many online health interventions, potentially threatening the inferential value of online randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: In the context of a randomized controlled trial of an online weight management intervention, where 85% of the baseline participants were lost to follow-up at the 12-month measurement, the objective was to examine the effect of nonresponse on key outcomes and explore ways to reduce attrition in follow-up surveys. METHODS: A sample of 700 nonrespondents to the 12-month online follow-up survey was randomly assigned to a mail or telephone nonresponse follow-up survey. We examined response rates in the two groups, costs of follow-up, reasons for nonresponse, and mode effects. We ran several logistic regression models, predicting response or nonresponse to the 12-month online survey as well as predicting response or nonresponse to the follow-up survey. RESULTS: We analyzed 210 follow-up respondents in the mail and 170 in the telephone group. Response rates of 59% and 55% were obtained for the telephone and mail nonresponse follow-up surveys, respectively. A total of 197 respondents (51.8%) gave reasons related to technical issues or email as a means of communication, with older people more likely to give technical reasons for noncompletion; 144 (37.9%) gave reasons related to the intervention or the survey itself. Mail follow-up was substantially cheaper: We estimate that the telephone survey cost about US $34 per sampled case, compared to US $15 for the mail survey. The telephone responses were subject to possible social desirability effects, with the telephone respondents reporting significantly greater weight loss than the mail respondents. The respondents to the nonresponse follow-up did not differ significantly from the 12-month online respondents on key outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: Mail is an effective way to reduce attrition to online surveys, while telephone follow-up might lead to overestimating the weight loss for both the treatment and control groups. Nonresponse bias does not appear to be a significant factor in the conclusions drawn from the randomized controlled trial. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1913938 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | Gunther Eysenbach |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-19139382007-07-11 Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone Couper, Mick P Peytchev, Andy Strecher, Victor J Rothert, Kendra Anderson, Julia J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Attrition, or dropout, is a problem faced by many online health interventions, potentially threatening the inferential value of online randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: In the context of a randomized controlled trial of an online weight management intervention, where 85% of the baseline participants were lost to follow-up at the 12-month measurement, the objective was to examine the effect of nonresponse on key outcomes and explore ways to reduce attrition in follow-up surveys. METHODS: A sample of 700 nonrespondents to the 12-month online follow-up survey was randomly assigned to a mail or telephone nonresponse follow-up survey. We examined response rates in the two groups, costs of follow-up, reasons for nonresponse, and mode effects. We ran several logistic regression models, predicting response or nonresponse to the 12-month online survey as well as predicting response or nonresponse to the follow-up survey. RESULTS: We analyzed 210 follow-up respondents in the mail and 170 in the telephone group. Response rates of 59% and 55% were obtained for the telephone and mail nonresponse follow-up surveys, respectively. A total of 197 respondents (51.8%) gave reasons related to technical issues or email as a means of communication, with older people more likely to give technical reasons for noncompletion; 144 (37.9%) gave reasons related to the intervention or the survey itself. Mail follow-up was substantially cheaper: We estimate that the telephone survey cost about US $34 per sampled case, compared to US $15 for the mail survey. The telephone responses were subject to possible social desirability effects, with the telephone respondents reporting significantly greater weight loss than the mail respondents. The respondents to the nonresponse follow-up did not differ significantly from the 12-month online respondents on key outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: Mail is an effective way to reduce attrition to online surveys, while telephone follow-up might lead to overestimating the weight loss for both the treatment and control groups. Nonresponse bias does not appear to be a significant factor in the conclusions drawn from the randomized controlled trial. Gunther Eysenbach 2007-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC1913938/ /pubmed/17567564 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.2.e16 Text en © Mick P Couper, Andy Peytchev, Victor J Strecher, Kendra Rothert, Julia Anderson. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org, 13.06.2007). Except where otherwise noted, articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, including full bibliographic details and the URL (see "please cite as" above), and this statement is included. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Couper, Mick P Peytchev, Andy Strecher, Victor J Rothert, Kendra Anderson, Julia Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone |
title | Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone |
title_full | Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone |
title_fullStr | Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone |
title_full_unstemmed | Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone |
title_short | Following Up Nonrespondents to an Online Weight Management Intervention: Randomized Trial Comparing Mail versus Telephone |
title_sort | following up nonrespondents to an online weight management intervention: randomized trial comparing mail versus telephone |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17567564 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.2.e16 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT coupermickp followingupnonrespondentstoanonlineweightmanagementinterventionrandomizedtrialcomparingmailversustelephone AT peytchevandy followingupnonrespondentstoanonlineweightmanagementinterventionrandomizedtrialcomparingmailversustelephone AT strechervictorj followingupnonrespondentstoanonlineweightmanagementinterventionrandomizedtrialcomparingmailversustelephone AT rothertkendra followingupnonrespondentstoanonlineweightmanagementinterventionrandomizedtrialcomparingmailversustelephone AT andersonjulia followingupnonrespondentstoanonlineweightmanagementinterventionrandomizedtrialcomparingmailversustelephone |