ArticlePloS one2024
Improving follow-up survey completion rates through pilot interventions in the All of Us Research Program: Results from a non-randomized intervention study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- TheJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRetention to complete follow-up surveys in extensive longitudinal epidemiological cohort studies is vital yet challenging. All of Us developed pilot interventions to improve response rates for follow-up surveys. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingThe pilot interventions occurred from April 27, 2020, to August 3, 2020. The three arms were: (1) telephone appointment [staff members calling participants offering appointments to complete surveys over phone] (2) postal [mail reminder to complete surveys through U.S. Postal Service], and (3) combination of telephone appointment and postal. Controls received digital-only reminders [program-level digital recontact via email or through the participant portal]. Study sites chose their study arm and participants were not randomized.
resultsA total of 50 sites piloted interventions with 17,593 participants, while 47,832 participants comprised controls during the same period. Of all participants, 6,828 (10.4%) completed any follow-up surveys (1448: telephone; 522: postal; 486: combination; 4372: controls). Follow-up survey completions were 24% higher in the telephone appointment arm than in controls in bivariate analyses. When controlling for confounders, telephone appointment and combination arms increased rates of completion similarly compared to controls, while the postal arm had no significant effect (odds ratio [95% Confidence Interval], telephone appointment:2.01[1.81-2.23]; combination:1.91[1.66-2.20]; postal:0.92[0.79-1.07]). Although the effects of the telephone appointment and combination arms were similar, differential effects were observed across sub-populations.
conclusionTelephone appointments appeared to be the most successful intervention in our study. Lessons learned about retention interventions, and improvement in follow-up survey completion rates provide generalizable knowledge for similar cohort studies and demonstrate the potential value of precision reminders and engagement with sub-populations of a cohort.
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.