Cargando…

Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial

Background: Postal questionnaires are frequently used in randomised controlled trials to collect outcome data on participants; however, poor response can introduce bias, affect generalisability and validity, and reduce statistical power. The objective of this study was to assess whether a pen and/or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: James, Sophie, Parker, Adwoa, Cockayne, Sarah, Rodgers, Sara, Fairhurst, Caroline, Torgerson, David J., Rhodes, Sarah, Cotterill, Sarah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8772525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35106140
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23767.2
_version_ 1784635866706083840
author James, Sophie
Parker, Adwoa
Cockayne, Sarah
Rodgers, Sara
Fairhurst, Caroline
Torgerson, David J.
Rhodes, Sarah
Cotterill, Sarah
author_facet James, Sophie
Parker, Adwoa
Cockayne, Sarah
Rodgers, Sara
Fairhurst, Caroline
Torgerson, David J.
Rhodes, Sarah
Cotterill, Sarah
author_sort James, Sophie
collection PubMed
description Background: Postal questionnaires are frequently used in randomised controlled trials to collect outcome data on participants; however, poor response can introduce bias, affect generalisability and validity, and reduce statistical power. The objective of this study was to assess whether a pen and/or social incentive text cover letter sent with a postal follow-up questionnaire increased response rates in a trial. Method: A two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial was embedded within the OTIS host trial. Participants due their 12-month (final) follow-up questionnaire were randomised to be sent: a pen; a social incentive text cover letter; both; or neither. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants in each group who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to return, completeness of the questionnaire, necessity of a reminder letter, and the cost effectiveness. Results: The overall 12-month questionnaire response rate was 721 out of 755 (95.5%). Neither the pen nor social incentive cover letter had a statistically significant effect on response rate: pen 95.2% vs. no pen 95.8%, adjusted OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.80; p=0.77); social incentive cover letter 95.2% vs. no social incentive cover letter 95.8%, adjusted OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.69, p=0.63). No statistically significant differences were observed between either of the intervention groups on time to response, need for a reminder or completeness. Therefore, neither intervention was cost-effective. Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference in response rates associated with the inclusion of a pen and/or social incentive cover letter with the final follow-up postal questionnaire of the host trial. However, when these results are combined with previous SWATs, the meta-analysis evidence remains that including a pen increases response rates. The social incentive cover letter warrants further investigation to determine effectiveness. Trial registration: ISRCTN22202133 (21st June 2020).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8772525
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87725252022-01-31 Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial James, Sophie Parker, Adwoa Cockayne, Sarah Rodgers, Sara Fairhurst, Caroline Torgerson, David J. Rhodes, Sarah Cotterill, Sarah F1000Res Research Article Background: Postal questionnaires are frequently used in randomised controlled trials to collect outcome data on participants; however, poor response can introduce bias, affect generalisability and validity, and reduce statistical power. The objective of this study was to assess whether a pen and/or social incentive text cover letter sent with a postal follow-up questionnaire increased response rates in a trial. Method: A two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial was embedded within the OTIS host trial. Participants due their 12-month (final) follow-up questionnaire were randomised to be sent: a pen; a social incentive text cover letter; both; or neither. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants in each group who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to return, completeness of the questionnaire, necessity of a reminder letter, and the cost effectiveness. Results: The overall 12-month questionnaire response rate was 721 out of 755 (95.5%). Neither the pen nor social incentive cover letter had a statistically significant effect on response rate: pen 95.2% vs. no pen 95.8%, adjusted OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.80; p=0.77); social incentive cover letter 95.2% vs. no social incentive cover letter 95.8%, adjusted OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.69, p=0.63). No statistically significant differences were observed between either of the intervention groups on time to response, need for a reminder or completeness. Therefore, neither intervention was cost-effective. Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference in response rates associated with the inclusion of a pen and/or social incentive cover letter with the final follow-up postal questionnaire of the host trial. However, when these results are combined with previous SWATs, the meta-analysis evidence remains that including a pen increases response rates. The social incentive cover letter warrants further investigation to determine effectiveness. Trial registration: ISRCTN22202133 (21st June 2020). F1000 Research Limited 2021-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8772525/ /pubmed/35106140 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23767.2 Text en Copyright: © 2021 James S et al. https://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
James, Sophie
Parker, Adwoa
Cockayne, Sarah
Rodgers, Sara
Fairhurst, Caroline
Torgerson, David J.
Rhodes, Sarah
Cotterill, Sarah
Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial
title Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial
title_full Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial
title_fullStr Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial
title_full_unstemmed Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial
title_short Including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled Study within a Trial
title_sort including a pen and/or cover letter, containing social incentive text, had no effect on questionnaire response rate: a factorial randomised controlled study within a trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8772525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35106140
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23767.2
work_keys_str_mv AT jamessophie includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial
AT parkeradwoa includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial
AT cockaynesarah includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial
AT rodgerssara includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial
AT fairhurstcaroline includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial
AT torgersondavidj includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial
AT rhodessarah includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial
AT cotterillsarah includingapenandorcoverlettercontainingsocialincentivetexthadnoeffectonquestionnaireresponserateafactorialrandomisedcontrolledstudywithinatrial