Cargando…

Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial

Background: Poor response to questionnaires collecting outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can affect the validity of trial results. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of including a pen with a follow-up postal questionnaire on response rate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cunningham-Burley, Rachel, Roche, Jenny, Fairhurst, Caroline, Cockayne, Sarah, Hewitt, Catherine, Iles-Smith, Heather, Torgerson, David J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7941094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33728040
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23651.1
_version_ 1783662086649282560
author Cunningham-Burley, Rachel
Roche, Jenny
Fairhurst, Caroline
Cockayne, Sarah
Hewitt, Catherine
Iles-Smith, Heather
Torgerson, David J.
author_facet Cunningham-Burley, Rachel
Roche, Jenny
Fairhurst, Caroline
Cockayne, Sarah
Hewitt, Catherine
Iles-Smith, Heather
Torgerson, David J.
author_sort Cunningham-Burley, Rachel
collection PubMed
description Background: Poor response to questionnaires collecting outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can affect the validity of trial results. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of including a pen with a follow-up postal questionnaire on response rate. Methods: A two-armed RCT was embedded within SSHeW (Stopping Slips among Healthcare Workers), a trial of slip-resistant footwear to reduce slips in NHS staff.  Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive a pen or no pen with their follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to response, completeness of response, and whether a postal reminder notice was required. Data were analysed using logistic regression, linear regression and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Overall, 1466 SSHEW trial participants were randomised into the SWAT. In total, 13 withdrew from the host trial before they were due to be sent their follow-up questionnaire, 728 participants received a pen with their questionnaire, and 725 did not receive a pen.  A questionnaire was returned from 67.7% of the pen group and 64.7% of the group who did not receive a pen. There was no significant difference in return rates between the two groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.43, p=0.22), nor level of completeness of the questionnaires (AMD -0.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.05, p=0.77).  There was weak evidence of a reduction in the proportion of participants requiring a reminder and in time to response in the pen group. Conclusion: Inclusion of a pen with the follow-up postal questionnaire sent to participants in the SSHeW trial did not statistically significantly increase the response rate. These results add to the body of evidence around improving response rates in trials. Trial registration: ISRCTN 33051393 (for SSHEW). Registered on 14/03/2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7941094
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79410942021-03-15 Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial Cunningham-Burley, Rachel Roche, Jenny Fairhurst, Caroline Cockayne, Sarah Hewitt, Catherine Iles-Smith, Heather Torgerson, David J. F1000Res Research Article Background: Poor response to questionnaires collecting outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can affect the validity of trial results. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of including a pen with a follow-up postal questionnaire on response rate. Methods: A two-armed RCT was embedded within SSHeW (Stopping Slips among Healthcare Workers), a trial of slip-resistant footwear to reduce slips in NHS staff.  Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive a pen or no pen with their follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to response, completeness of response, and whether a postal reminder notice was required. Data were analysed using logistic regression, linear regression and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Overall, 1466 SSHEW trial participants were randomised into the SWAT. In total, 13 withdrew from the host trial before they were due to be sent their follow-up questionnaire, 728 participants received a pen with their questionnaire, and 725 did not receive a pen.  A questionnaire was returned from 67.7% of the pen group and 64.7% of the group who did not receive a pen. There was no significant difference in return rates between the two groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.43, p=0.22), nor level of completeness of the questionnaires (AMD -0.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.05, p=0.77).  There was weak evidence of a reduction in the proportion of participants requiring a reminder and in time to response in the pen group. Conclusion: Inclusion of a pen with the follow-up postal questionnaire sent to participants in the SSHeW trial did not statistically significantly increase the response rate. These results add to the body of evidence around improving response rates in trials. Trial registration: ISRCTN 33051393 (for SSHEW). Registered on 14/03/2017. F1000 Research Limited 2020-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7941094/ /pubmed/33728040 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23651.1 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Cunningham-Burley R et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cunningham-Burley, Rachel
Roche, Jenny
Fairhurst, Caroline
Cockayne, Sarah
Hewitt, Catherine
Iles-Smith, Heather
Torgerson, David J.
Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial
title Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial
title_full Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial
title_short Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial
title_sort enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7941094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33728040
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23651.1
work_keys_str_mv AT cunninghamburleyrachel enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT rochejenny enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT fairhurstcaroline enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT cockaynesarah enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT hewittcatherine enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT ilessmithheather enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT torgersondavidj enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT enclosingapentoimproveresponseratetopostalquestionnaireanembeddedrandomisedcontrolledtrial