Trial reportJournal of clinical epidemiology2017
Mode of delivery affected questionnaire response rates in a birth cohort study.
Trial report in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Response is increased using postal rather than electronic questionnaires - new results from an updated Cochrane Systematic Review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Using instruments for selection to adjust for selection bias in Mendelian randomization.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Resident Burnout, Wellness, Professional Development, and Engagement Before and After New Training Schedule Implementation.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design-a sequential mixed methods study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Development and preliminary evaluation of a patient portal messaging for research recruitment service.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCohort studies must collect data from their participants as economically as possible, while maintaining response rates. This randomized controlled trial investigated whether offering a choice of online or paper questionnaires resulted in improved response rates compared with offering online first. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingEligible participants were young people in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) study (born April 1, 1991, to December 31, 1992, in the Avon area). After exclusions, 8,795 participants were randomized. The "online first" group were invited to complete the questionnaire online. The "choice" group were also sent a paper questionnaire and offered a choice of completion method. The trial was embedded within routine data collection. The main outcome measure was the number of questionnaires returned. Data on costs were also collected.
resultsThose in the "online first" arm of the trial were less likely to return a questionnaire [adjusted odds ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82, 0.99]. The "choice" arm was more expensive (mean difference per participant £0.71; 95% CI: £0.65, £0.76). It cost an extra £47 to have one extra person to complete the questionnaire in the "choice" arm.
conclusionOffering a choice of completion methods (paper or online) for questionnaires in ALSPAC increased response rates but was more expensive than offering online first.
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.