ArticleBMC public health2024
Characterizing participants who respond to text, email, phone calls, or postcards in a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consumer Views on the Role of the Natural Health Products (NHPs) Industry in Pharmacovigilance for NHPs: A Qualitative Study in New Zealand.Drug safety · 2026Article
- A New Primary Care Model Based on Population Needs: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultiple modalities and frequencies of contact are needed to maximize recruitment in many public health surveys. The purpose of this analysis is to characterize respondents to a statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing study whose participation followed either postcard, phone outreach or electronic means of invitation. In addition, we examine how participant characteristics differ based upon the number of contacts needed to elicit participation.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from participants who were randomly selected to represent Indiana residents and were invited to be tested for Covid-19 in April 2020. Participants received invitations via postcard, text/emails, and/or robocalls/texts based upon available contact information. The modality, and frequency of contacts, that prompted participation was determined by when the notification was sent and when the participant responded and subsequently registered to participate in the study. Chi square analyses were used to determine differences between groups and significant findings were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression.
resultsRespondents included 3,658 individuals and were stratified by postcards (7.9%), text/emails (26.5%), and robocalls/text (65.7%) with 19.7% registering after 1 contact, 47.9% after 2 contacts, and 32.4% after 3 contacts encouraging participation. Females made up 54.6% of the sample and responded at a higher rate for postcards (8.2% vs. 7.5%) and text/emails (28.1 vs. 24.6%) as compared to males (χ DISCUSSION: Researchers should be aware that the modality of contact as well as the number of prompts used could influence differential participation in public health studies. Our findings can inform researchers developing studies that rely on selective participation by study subjects. We explore how to increase participation within targeted demographic groups using specific modalities and examining frequency of contact.
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.