Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148682›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Converting from face-to-face to postal follow-up and its effects on participant retention, response rates and errors: lessons from the EQUAL study in the UK.

Emer Gates, Barnaby Hole, Samantha Hayward, Nicholas C Chesnaye, Yvette Meuleman, Friedo W Dekker, Marie Evans, Olof Heimburger, Claudia Torino, Gaetana Porto and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

Emer GatesCentre for Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. emer.gates@nbt.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8253-3887
Barnaby HoleCentre for Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Samantha HaywardCentre for Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nicholas C ChesnayeERA-EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Yvette MeulemanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Friedo W DekkerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marie EvansRenal Unit, Department of Clinical Intervention and technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olof HeimburgerRenal Unit, Department of Clinical Intervention and technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Claudia TorinoInstitute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Gaetana PortoGOM Bianchi Melacrino Morelli, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Maciej SzymczakDepartment of Nephrology and Transplantation Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Christiane DrechslerDivision of Nephrology, University Hospital of Wurzburg, Wurzburg, Germany.
Christoph WannerDivision of Nephrology, University Hospital of Wurzburg, Wurzburg, Germany.
Kitty J JagerERA-EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul RoderickSchool of Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Fergus CaskeyCentre for Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
EQUAL investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProspective cohort studies are challenging to deliver, with one of the main difficulties lying in retention of participants. The need to socially distance during the COVID-19 pandemic has added to this challenge. The pre-COVID-19 adaptation of the European Quality (EQUAL) study in the UK to a remote form of follow-up for efficiency provides lessons for those who are considering changing their study design.

methodsThe EQUAL study is an international prospective cohort study of patients ≥65 years of age with advanced chronic kidney disease. Initially, patients were invited to complete a questionnaire (SF-36, Dialysis Symptom Index and Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at research clinics every 3-6 months, known as "traditional follow-up" (TFU). In 2018, all living patients were invited to switch to "efficient follow-up" (EFU), which used an abbreviated questionnaire consisting of SF-12 and Dialysis Symptom Index. These were administered centrally by post. Response rates were calculated using returned questionnaires as a proportion of surviving invitees, and error rates presented as the average percentage of unanswered questions or unclear answers, of total questions in returned questionnaires. Response and error rates were calculated 6-monthly in TFU to allow comparisons with EFU.

resultsOf the 504 patients initially recruited, 236 were still alive at the time of conversion to EFU; 111 of these (47%) consented to the change in follow-up. In those who consented, median TFU was 34 months, ranging from 0 to 42 months. Their response rates fell steadily from 88% (98/111) at month 0 of TFU, to 20% (3/15) at month 42. The response rate for the first EFU questionnaire was 60% (59/99) of those alive from TFU. With this improvement in response rates, the first EFU also lowered errors to baseline levels seen in early follow-up, after having almost trebled throughout traditional follow-up.

conclusionsOverall, this study demonstrates that administration of shorter follow-up questionnaires by post rather than in person does not negatively impact patient response or error rates. These results may be reassuring for researchers who are trying to limit face-to-face contact with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsFollow-Up StudiesHumansProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2United KingdomChronic kidney diseaseErrorsFollow-upProspective cohort studyResponse ratesRetention

Identifiers

PMID35148682
PMCPMC8832416

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.