Cargando…

A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study

BACKGROUND: Attrition is an important problem in cohort studies. Tracing cohort members who have moved or otherwise lost contact with the study is vital. There is some debate about the acceptability and relative effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out methods of contacting cohort members to re-engage...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bray, Isabelle, Noble, Sian, Boyd, Andy, Brown, Lindsey, Hayes, Pei, Malcolm, Joanne, Robinson, Ross, Williams, Rachel, Burston, Kirsty, Macleod, John, Molloy, Lynn, Tilling, Kate
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4512038/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26202794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y
_version_ 1782382431921242112
author Bray, Isabelle
Noble, Sian
Boyd, Andy
Brown, Lindsey
Hayes, Pei
Malcolm, Joanne
Robinson, Ross
Williams, Rachel
Burston, Kirsty
Macleod, John
Molloy, Lynn
Tilling, Kate
author_facet Bray, Isabelle
Noble, Sian
Boyd, Andy
Brown, Lindsey
Hayes, Pei
Malcolm, Joanne
Robinson, Ross
Williams, Rachel
Burston, Kirsty
Macleod, John
Molloy, Lynn
Tilling, Kate
author_sort Bray, Isabelle
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Attrition is an important problem in cohort studies. Tracing cohort members who have moved or otherwise lost contact with the study is vital. There is some debate about the acceptability and relative effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out methods of contacting cohort members to re-engage them in this context. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the two approaches in terms of effectiveness (tracing to confirm address and consenting to continue in the study), cost-effectiveness and acceptability. METHODS: Participants in this trial were individuals (young people and mothers) recruited to the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), who had not engaged with the study in the previous 5 years and for whom mail had been returned from their last known address. The sampling frame was restricted to those for whom database searching led to a potential new address being found in the Bristol area. 300 participants were randomly selected and assigned using stratified randomisation to the opt-in or opt-out arm. A tailored letter was sent to the potential new address, either asking participants to opt in to a home visit, or giving them the option to opt out of a home visit. Fieldworkers from Ipsos MORI conducted home visits to confirm address details. RESULTS: The proportion who were traced was higher in the opt-out arm (77/150 = 51 %) than the opt-in arm (6/150 = 4 %), as was the proportion who consented to continue in ALSPAC (46/150 = 31 % v 4/150 = 3 %). The mean cost per participant was £8.14 in the opt-in arm and £71.93 in the opt-out arm. There was no evidence of a difference in acceptability between the opt-in and opt-out approaches. CONCLUSION: Since the opt-in approach yielded very low response rates, and there were no differences in terms of acceptability, we conclude that the opt-out approach is the most effective method of tracing disengaged study members. The gains made in contacting participants must be weighed against the increase in cost using this methodology. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4512038
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45120382015-07-24 A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study Bray, Isabelle Noble, Sian Boyd, Andy Brown, Lindsey Hayes, Pei Malcolm, Joanne Robinson, Ross Williams, Rachel Burston, Kirsty Macleod, John Molloy, Lynn Tilling, Kate BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Attrition is an important problem in cohort studies. Tracing cohort members who have moved or otherwise lost contact with the study is vital. There is some debate about the acceptability and relative effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out methods of contacting cohort members to re-engage them in this context. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the two approaches in terms of effectiveness (tracing to confirm address and consenting to continue in the study), cost-effectiveness and acceptability. METHODS: Participants in this trial were individuals (young people and mothers) recruited to the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), who had not engaged with the study in the previous 5 years and for whom mail had been returned from their last known address. The sampling frame was restricted to those for whom database searching led to a potential new address being found in the Bristol area. 300 participants were randomly selected and assigned using stratified randomisation to the opt-in or opt-out arm. A tailored letter was sent to the potential new address, either asking participants to opt in to a home visit, or giving them the option to opt out of a home visit. Fieldworkers from Ipsos MORI conducted home visits to confirm address details. RESULTS: The proportion who were traced was higher in the opt-out arm (77/150 = 51 %) than the opt-in arm (6/150 = 4 %), as was the proportion who consented to continue in ALSPAC (46/150 = 31 % v 4/150 = 3 %). The mean cost per participant was £8.14 in the opt-in arm and £71.93 in the opt-out arm. There was no evidence of a difference in acceptability between the opt-in and opt-out approaches. CONCLUSION: Since the opt-in approach yielded very low response rates, and there were no differences in terms of acceptability, we conclude that the opt-out approach is the most effective method of tracing disengaged study members. The gains made in contacting participants must be weighed against the increase in cost using this methodology. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4512038/ /pubmed/26202794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y Text en © Bray et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bray, Isabelle
Noble, Sian
Boyd, Andy
Brown, Lindsey
Hayes, Pei
Malcolm, Joanne
Robinson, Ross
Williams, Rachel
Burston, Kirsty
Macleod, John
Molloy, Lynn
Tilling, Kate
A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
title A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
title_full A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
title_fullStr A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
title_full_unstemmed A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
title_short A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
title_sort randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4512038/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26202794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y
work_keys_str_mv AT brayisabelle arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT noblesian arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT boydandy arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT brownlindsey arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT hayespei arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT malcolmjoanne arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT robinsonross arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT williamsrachel arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT burstonkirsty arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT macleodjohn arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT molloylynn arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT tillingkate arandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT brayisabelle randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT noblesian randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT boydandy randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT brownlindsey randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT hayespei randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT malcolmjoanne randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT robinsonross randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT williamsrachel randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT burstonkirsty randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT macleodjohn randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT molloylynn randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy
AT tillingkate randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingoptinandoptouthomevisitsfortracinglostparticipantsinaprospectivebirthcohortstudy