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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Couper, Mick P, Peytchev, Andy, Strecher, Victor J, Rothert, Kendra, Anderson, Julia
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