Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34321055›Full record

Trial reportTrials2021

Randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to postal questionnaires (PROMPTS).

Lucy Cureton, Ioana R Marian, Vicki S Barber, Adwoa Parker, David J Torgerson, Sally Hopewell

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors.

Lucy CuretonCentre for Rehabilitation Research in Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0082-8468
Ioana R MarianOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Building, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Vicki S BarberOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Building, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Adwoa ParkerYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.
David J TorgersonYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Sally HopewellCentre for Rehabilitation Research in Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. sally.hopewell@csm.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16896
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of a person's name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient's name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires.

methodsUsing a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by a central computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost.

resultsBetween March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message.

conclusionOverall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message.

trial registrationGRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35.

Indexed as

Text MessagingHumansMaleResearch DesignShoulder PainSurveys and QuestionnairesPostal questionnaireRandomised controlled trialRetentionStudy within a trialTrial methodology

Identifiers

PMID34321055
PMCPMC8320189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.