Trial reportTrials2015
SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Pre-notifications increase retention in a 17-year follow-up of adolescents born very preterm.Trials · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Randomized controlled comparison of cross-sectional survey approaches to optimize follow-up completeness in clinical studies.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Article
- Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map.Trials · 2020Review
- Better Ask Than Tell: Responses to mHealth Interrogative Reminders and Associations With Colorectal Cancer Screening Subsequent Uptake in a Prospective Cohort Intervention.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER LAPAROSCOPIC SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY USİNG BAROS SYSTEM.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Article
- Best practice guidance for the use of strategies to improve retention in randomized trials developed from two consensus workshops.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2017Article
- Cloud Based Surveys to Assess Patient Perceptions of Health Care: 1000 Respondents in 3 days for US $300.JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes are vital in informing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and health-care interventions and policies from the patient's perspective. However, participant non-response may introduce bias and can affect the generalisability of the trial. This study evaluates two interventions aimed at increasing response rates to postal questionnaires within a large, UK-wide RCT: pre-notification via short messenger service (SMS) text prior to sending the initial mailing of trial questionnaires versus no pre-notification; for non-responders to the initial mailing of the questionnaires, an e-mail reminder (containing a hyperlink to complete the questionnaire online) versus a postal reminder.
methodsThis study is a 2 × 2 partial factorial design RCT nested within an RCT of medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stone disease. Participants who supplied a mobile telephone number were randomly assigned to receive an SMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery or no pre-notification. Those who supplied an e-mail address were randomly assigned to receive a questionnaire reminder by e-mail or post. Participants could be randomly assigned to the pre-notification comparison or the reminder comparison or both. The primary outcome measure was response rate at each questionnaire time point.
resultsFour hundred eighteen participants were randomly assigned to the SMS pre-notification comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 41 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 11.1). The intervention had no effect on response rate at either questionnaire time point. In subgroup analyses, SMS pre-notification increased response rates in women but only at the first questionnaire time point. One hundred nineteen participants were randomly assigned to the reminder comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 42 years with an SD of 12.1). There was no difference in response rate in those who received an e-mail reminder compared with those who received a postal reminder.
conclusionsSMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery and email delivery of questionnaire reminders did not improve response rates. There was some evidence to suggest that SMS text pre-notification may be effective in women, and further studies to investigate this may be warranted. E-mail reminders for participants to return their postal questionnaire could be advantageous given that response rates were similar following either type of reminder and the low cost of delivering an e-mail compared with a postal reminder. This is a substudy of the SUSPEND trial (ISCTRN69423238) (18 Nov. 2010).
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.