A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study

Abstract

BackgroundAttrition is an important problem in cohort studies. Tracing cohort members who have moved or otherwise lost contact with the study is vital. There is some debate about the acceptability and relative effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out methods of contacting cohort members to re-engage them in this context. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the two approaches in terms of effectiveness (tracing to confirm address and consenting to continue in the study), cost-effectiveness and acceptability.MethodsParticipants in this trial were individuals (young people and mothers) recruited to the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), who had not engaged with the study in the previous 5 years and for whom mail had been returned from their last known address. The sampling frame was restricted to those for whom database searching led to a potential new address being found in the Bristol area. 300 participants were randomly selected and assigned using stratified randomisation to the opt-in or opt-out arm. A tailored letter was sent to the potential new address, either asking participants to opt in to a home visit, or giving them the option to opt out of a home visit. Fieldworkers from Ipsos MORI conducted home visits to confirm address details.ResultsThe proportion who were traced was higher in the opt-out arm (77/150 = 51 %) than the opt-in arm (6/150 = 4 %), as was the proportion who consented to continue in ALSPAC (46/150 = 31 % v 4/150 = 3 %). The mean cost per participant was £8.14 in the opt-in arm and £71.93 in the opt-out arm. There was no evidence of a difference in acceptability between the opt-in and opt-out approaches.ConclusionSince the opt-in approach yielded very low response rates, and there were no differences in terms of acceptability, we conclude that the opt-out approach is the most effective method of tracing disengaged study members. The gains made in contacting participants must be weighed against the increase in cost using this methodology.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Protocol for a two-arm feasibility RCT to support postnatal maternal weight management and positive lifestyle behaviour in women from an ethnically diverse inner city population: the SWAN feasibility trial

“…Compliance issues are an important consideration. Loss to follow-up among postnatal women can range from 30 to 40% [43, 44]. Experience of research in similar populations has shown that planned initiatives including flexible follow-up appointments, travel expenses, vouchers for returning questionnaires, and sending of reminders can reduce loss to follow-up.…”

Participant acceptability of digital footprint data collection strategies: an exemplar approach to participant engagement and involvement in the ALSPAC birth cohort study.

“…For instance, qualitative research with cohort members has also been conducted in order to explore their views on data linkage [30]. Furthermore, ALSPAC have conducted randomised trials with participants in order to elicit their opinions on materials to improve consent response rates [41], and to explore the effectiveness of opt in versus opt out methods of contacting participants for re-engagement [42]. Finally, participant representation on study committees helps ensure the interests of the cohort members are formally represented on an ongoing basis.…”

Enhancing Children’s Numeracy and Executive Function Skills via Explicit Integration: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Parents and guardians decided whether to opt out from the study by communicating this to settings, preserving their anonymity. This opt-out model of participation was selected because it is more likely to represent families and children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds in longitudinal designs (Bray et al, 2015).Participants.…”