Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39999441›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2025

Increasing Participation and Completion Rates in Questionnaire Surveys of Primary Care Patients: Cluster-Randomized Study.

Paul Sebo, Benoit Tudrej, Augustin Bernard, Bruno Delaunay, Alexandra Dupuy, Claire Malavergne, Hubert Maisonneuve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interactive journal of medical 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. 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

7 authors.

Paul SeboUniversity Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7616-0017
Benoit TudrejUniversity College of General Medicine, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3539-1833
Augustin BernardUniversity Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0170-3473
Bruno DelaunayUniversity Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7162-9248
Alexandra DupuyUniversity Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2055-3919
Claire MalavergneUniversity Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2052-8714
Hubert MaisonneuveUniversity Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5276-1122

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipation and completion rates in questionnaire-based surveys are often low.

objectiveThis study aims to assess participation and completion rates for a survey using paper and mixed mode questionnaires with patients recruited by research assistants in primary care waiting rooms.

methodsThis cluster-randomized study, conducted in 2023 in France, involved 974 patients from 39 practices randomized into 4 groups: "paper with incentive" (n=251), "paper without incentive" (n=368), "mixed mode with tablet" (n=187), and "mixed mode with QR code" (n=168). Analyses compared the combined paper group with the 2 mixed mode groups and the "paper with incentive" and "paper without incentive" groups. Logistic regressions were used to analyze participation and completion rates.

resultsOf the 974 patients recruited, 822 (women: 536/821, 65.3%; median age 52, IQR 37-68 years) agreed to participate (participation rate=84.4%), with no significant differences between groups. Overall, 806 patients (98.1%) answered all 48 questions. Completion rates were highest in the combined paper group (99.8%) compared to mixed mode groups (96.8% for paper or tablet, 93.3% for paper or QR code; P<.001). There was no significant difference in completion rates between the "paper with incentive" and "paper without incentive" groups (100% vs 99.7%).

conclusionsRecruiting patients in waiting rooms with research assistants resulted in high participation and completion rates across all groups. Mixed mode options did not enhance participation or completion rates but may offer logistical advantages. Future research should explore incentives and mixed-mode strategies in diverse settings.

Indexed as

completion ratemissing datamixed modeparticipation rateprimary careprimary care patientsQR codequestionnairerandomized studysurveytabletweb-based

Identifiers

PMID39999441
PMCPMC11897665

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.