Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21504610›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2011

A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies.

Cara L Booker, Seeromanie Harding, Michaela Benzeval

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03337659 (Child Developmental Health, Maternal Psychosocial Distress, and Health System Costs At 18 Months Corrected Age), which is not on this map. Cited by 183 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03337659 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Child Developmental Health, Maternal Psychosocial Distress, and Health System Costs At 18 Months Corrected Age: Effectiveness of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of Family Integrated Care in Level II NICUs

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2017 to 2020Enrolled297ConditionsPremature BirthArmsFamily Integrated Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

183 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cara L BookerMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK. cbooker@essex.ac.uk
Seeromanie Harding
Michaela Benzeval

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_EX_G0701943Medical Research Council MC_U130015185Medical Research Council MC_UP_A540_1021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLongitudinal studies are of aetiological and public health relevance but can be undermined by attrition. The aim of this paper was to identify effective retention strategies to increase participation in population-based cohort studies.

methodsSystematic review of the literature to identify prospective population-based cohort studies with health outcomes in which retention strategies had been evaluated.

resultsTwenty-eight studies published up to January 2011 were included. Eleven of which were randomized controlled trials of retention strategies (RCT). Fifty-seven percent of the studies were postal, 21% in-person, 14% telephone and 7% had mixed data collection methods. A total of 45 different retention strategies were used, categorised as 1) incentives, 2) reminder methods, repeat visits or repeat questionnaires, alternative modes of data collection or 3) other methods. Incentives were associated with an increase in retention rates, which improved with greater incentive value. Whether cash was the most effective incentive was not clear from studies that compared cash and gifts of similar value. The average increase in retention rate was 12% for reminder letters, 5% for reminder calls and 12% for repeat questionnaires. Ten studies used alternative data collection methods, mainly as a last resort. All postal studies offered telephone interviews to non-responders, which increased retention rates by 3%. Studies that used face-to-face interviews increased their retention rates by 24% by offering alternative locations and modes of data collection.

conclusionsIncentives boosted retention rates in prospective cohort studies. Other methods appeared to have a beneficial effect but there was a general lack of a systematic approach to their evaluation.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesPatient DropoutsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21504610
PMCPMC3103452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.