ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Comparing survey delivery methods in healthcare: A randomized study.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. 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.
- Real-world quality of life and sleep outcomes in patients treated with THC- and CBD-richFrontiers in pharmacology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare healthcare survey response rates using two widely utilized recruitment methods: email and the electronic health record (EHR) patient portal. Materials and methods: Adults with a prior history of any bariatric surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a survey invitation via email or through the EHR patient portal. A second reminder was sent using the same method. A third invitation used a crossover approach, switching to the alternate method. We compared survey completion rates, changes in research preference status, and time to survey completion. Predictors of response were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: The email group had a 9.9% response rate after the first invitation and 6.5% after the second. The EHR portal group had 8.4% and 4.5% response rates, respectively. Following crossover, the third invitation yielded a 4.4% response for those switched to the EHR portal and 7.5% for those switched to email. The EHR portal group was 27% less likely to complete the survey compared to the email group. Respondents were more likely to be female, non-Hispanic, White, have a recent healthcare encounter, and have recently logged into the portal. Median time to completion was under 24 hours in both groups, with over two-thirds of responses received on the day of or the day after the invitation. A change in research preference status was observed in 2.5% of email and 4.0% of portal participants. Discussion and conclusion: Email-based recruitment yielded higher response rates than EHR portal-based recruitment, with most responses occurring shortly after invitation.
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.