Trial reportJournal of clinical epidemiology2015
Professionally designed information materials and telephone reminders improved consent response rates: evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort study.
Trial report in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Optimising patient engagement for assessing total joint arthroplasty outcomes - a randomised controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Trial
- Trial
- A multicenter feasibility randomized controlled trial using a virtual reality application of pain neuroscience education for adults with chronic low back pain.Annals of medicine · 2024Trial
- Effects of different invitation strategies on participation in a cohort study of Iranian public sector employees: a cluster randomized trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study.Trials · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Mode of delivery affected questionnaire response rates in a birth cohort study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Genetic associations of risk behaviours and educational achievement.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Randomised trials conducted using cohorts: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Exploring attitudes and variation by sociodemographic factors in consent provided for financial data linkage in an experimental birth cohort study.BMC public health · 2024Observational
- Article
- What does engagement mean to participants in longitudinal cohort studies? A qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Common health conditions in childhood and adolescence, school absence, and educational attainment: Mendelian randomization study.NPJ science of learning · 2021Article
- Five models for child and adolescent data linkage in the UK: a review of existing and proposed methods.Evidence-based mental health · 2020Review
- The potential for linking cohort participants to official criminal records: a pilot study using the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC).Wellcome open research · 2020Article
- Observational
- Data Resource Profile: The ALSPAC birth cohort as a platform to study the relationship of environment and health and social factors.International journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate whether different study-to-participant communication methods increase response, increase response from hard-to-engage individuals, and influence participants' consent decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingA randomized controlled trial within the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Cohort members were invited to re-enroll at age 18 and consent to linkage to their health and administrative records. Participants were randomized to receive one of eight combinations of three interventions: a prior-notification postcard or no contact, a standard or professionally designed consent pack, and a phone or postal reminder. The primary outcome was return of the consent form ("response"), with consent decision being the secondary outcome.
resultsOf 1,950 participants, 806 (41%) responded. Response rates were 2.7% higher (95% confidence interval: -0.06, 5.5%; P = 0.06) among those receiving designed packs than among those receiving standard packs and 6.4% higher (2.3, 10.6%; P = 0.002) among those receiving phone reminders (compared with postal reminders). The prior-notification postcard did not influence response rates [difference = 0% (-2.8, 2.8%; P = 1.0)], and we found no evidence that the communication method influenced consent decision.
conclusionThis trial provides evidence that communication material design can influence response rates and that phone reminders have superior cost/benefit returns over designed materials. Experimental evaluation of communications strategies and dissemination of findings may benefit cohort studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.