Response and non‐response to postal questionnaire follow‐up in a clinical trial – a qualitative study of the patient’s perspective

Nakash, Rachel A.; Hutton, Jane; Lamb, Sarah E; Gates, Simon; Fisher, Joanne

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x

Cited by 38 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Very few found our study too personal or were skeptical of the study, which means that, although not participating, the majority was not hostile towards the study itself. This finding is consistent with other studies of nonresponders (Nakash, Hutton, Lamb, Gates, & Fisher, 2008;Ronmark et al, 1999). The findings may be limited to brief natural disaster exposures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

Nonresponse to a population‐based postdisaster postal questionnaire study

Hussain

Weisæth

Heir

2009

Journal of Traumatic Stress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined nonparticipation in a 2-year postdisaster mail survey of Norwegian tourists evacuated from countries affected by the 2004 tsunami. One hundred seventy-one persons out of a random sample of 330 nonparticipants were telephone interviewed concerning disaster exposure, current posttraumatic stress reactions, and reasons for not participating. Fewer nonparticipants than participants had been in a place directly affected by the tsunami. Nonparticipants reported less perceived threat of death and lower levels of posttraumatic stress reactions. Reasons for not participating were "lack of interest or time" (39.2%), "lack of relevant experiences" (32.2%), and "too personal or emotionally disturbing" (15.2%). Our findings suggest that postdisaster studies may be biased in the direction of more severe disaster exposure and pronounced posttraumatic stress reactions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

Nonresponse to a population‐based postdisaster postal questionnaire study

Hussain

Weisæth

Heir

2009

Journal of Traumatic Stress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The communication strategies were; first- and second-class outward post (Kenton 2007a-d; Renfroe 2002b; Sharp 2006a-h), stamped and business reply envelopes (Sharp 2006a-h), letters signed by different study personnel (Renfroe 2002c), letters posted at different times (Renfroe 2002d), text messages (Man 2011; Severi 2011 1), and a telephone survey (Couper 2007). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials

Brueton

Tierney

Stenning

et al. 2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

205

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLoss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.ObjectivesTo quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention on the proportion of participants retained in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial strategy and trial setting.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration's Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register, and ERIC. We handsearched conference proceedings and publication reference lists for eligible retention trials. We also surveyed all UK Clinical Trials Units to identify further studies.Selection criteriaWe included eligible retention trials of randomised or quasi-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance.Data collection and analysisWe contacted authors to supplement or confirm data that we had extracted. For retention trials, we recorded data on the method of randomisation, type of strategy evaluated, comparator, primary outcome, planned sample size, numbers randomised and numbers retained. We used risk ratios (RR) to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials using the Chi2 and I2 statistics. For main trials that hosted retention trials, we extracted data on disease area, intervention, population, healthcare setting, sequence generation and allocation concealment.Main resultsWe identified 38 eligible retention trials. Included trials evaluated six broad types of strategies to improve retention. These were incentives, communication strategies, new questionnaire format, participant case management, behavioural and methodological interventions. For 34 of the included trials, retention was response to postal and electronic questionnaires with or without medical test kits. For four trials, retention was the number of participants remaining in the trial. Included trials were conducted across a spectrum of disease areas, countries, healthcare and community settings. Strategies that improved trial retention were addition of monetary incentives compared with no incentive for return of trial-related postal questionnaires (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28, P value < 0.0001), addition of an offer of monetary incentive compared with no offer for return of electronic questionnaires (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38, P value < 0.00001) and an offer of a GBP20 voucher compared with GBP10 for return of postal questionnaires and biomedical test kits (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22, P value < 0.005). The evidence that shorter questionnaires are better than longer questionnaires was unclear...

show abstract

“…l Nakash et al 128 undertook this useful work during the main trial with lessons for future trials, when it would have been more beneficial at the pre-trial stage in order to impact on the specific trial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%