Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39983108›Full record

Trial reportJMIR formative research2025

Effect on Response Rates of Adding a QR Code to Patient Consent Forms for Qualitative Research in Patients With Cancer: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rebecca Wyse, Erin Forbes, Grace Norton, Priscilla Viana Da Silva, Kristy Fakes, Sally Ann Johnston, Stephen R Smith, Alison Zucca

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

8 authors.

Rebecca WyseSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4872-2112
Erin ForbesSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0073-4621
Grace NortonSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1995-4587
Priscilla Viana Da SilvaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-5975
Kristy FakesSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7217-9578
Sally Ann JohnstonHunter New England Local Health District, John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-4974-2491
Stephen R SmithSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1104-133X
Alison ZuccaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0613-6307

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council NHMRC APP1169822
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe successful conduct of health and medical research is largely dependent on participant recruitment. Effective, yet inexpensive methods of increasing response rates for all types of research are required. QR codes are now commonplace, and despite having been extensively used to recruit study participants, a search of the literature failed to reveal any randomized trial investigating the effect of adding a QR code on qualitative research response rates.

objectiveThis study aimed to collect data on rates of response, consent, and decline among patients with cancer, and the average time taken to respond following randomization to receive either a QR code or no QR code on the patient consent form for a qualitative research study.

methodsThis was a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) embedded within a qualitative research study. In total, 40 eligible patients received a recruitment pack for the qualitative study, which included an information statement, a consent form, and an addressed, stamped envelope to return their consent form. Patients were randomized 1:1 to the control (standard recruitment pack only) or intervention group (standard recruitment pack including modified consent form with a QR code).

resultsIn total, 27 out of 40 patients (age: mean 63.0, SD 14.8 years; 45% female) responded to the consent form. A lower proportion of the QR code group (60%) responded (odd ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.14-2.37; P=.44), compared to 75% of the standard recruitment group. However, a higher proportion of the QR group (35%) consented (OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.41-8.29; P=.43), compared to the standard recruitment group (20%). A lower proportion of the QR group (25%) declined (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09-1.38; P=.13) relative to the standard recruitment group (55%). The mean response time of the QR code group was 16 days (rate ratio [RR] 0.79, 95% CI 0.47-1.35; P=.39) compared to 19 days for the standard recruitment group. None of the age-adjusted analyses were statistically significant.

conclusionsThis underpowered pilot study did not find any evidence that offering an option to respond through a QR code on a patient consent form for a qualitative study increased the overall patient response rate (combined rate of consent and decline). However, there was a nonsignificant trend, indicating that more patients who received the QR code consented compared to those who did not receive the QR code. This study provides useful preliminary data on the potential impact of QR codes on patient response rates to invitations to participate in qualitative research and can be used to inform fully powered RCTs.

trial registrationOSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/PJ25X; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PJ25X.

Indexed as

Consent FormsInformed ConsentNeoplasmsPatient SelectionAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsQualitative Researchcancerconsent formspatient recruitmentQR codequalitative researchrandomized controlled trialRCTresponse rates

Identifiers

PMID39983108
PMCPMC11890127

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.