TY - JOUR
T1 - Electronic reminders did not improve postal questionnaire response rates or response times
T2 - a randomized controlled trial
AU - Man, Mei-See
AU - Tilbrook, Helen E.
AU - Jayakody, Shalmini
AU - Hewitt, Catherine E.
AU - Cox, Helen
AU - Cross, Ben
AU - Torgerson, David J.
PY - 2011/9
Y1 - 2011/9
N2 - Objective: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic reminders (ERs) to improve the response rates and time to response of postal questionnaires in a health research setting.Study Design and Setting: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) was nested within a multicenter RCT of yoga for lower back pain. Participants who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile phone number were randomized to receive an ER or no reminder (controls) on the day they were due to receive a follow-up questionnaire.Results: One hundred twenty-five participants (32 males and 93 females) mean age 46 (standard deviation: 11, range: 20-65) were randomized to ER (n = 62) or controls (n = 63). Overall 85.6% of participants returned postal questionnaires (87.1% ER group and 84.1% from controls). No significant differences were found between the two groups for response rate (difference between groups = 3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10, 16; P = 0.64) or time to response after adjusting for age, gender, and treatment allocation (chi(2)([3df]) = 7.10; P = 0.07).Conclusion: In the present RCT, we found little evidence for the effectiveness of ERs to increase response rates or time to respond for the return of questionnaires in this study population group. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
AB - Objective: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic reminders (ERs) to improve the response rates and time to response of postal questionnaires in a health research setting.Study Design and Setting: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) was nested within a multicenter RCT of yoga for lower back pain. Participants who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile phone number were randomized to receive an ER or no reminder (controls) on the day they were due to receive a follow-up questionnaire.Results: One hundred twenty-five participants (32 males and 93 females) mean age 46 (standard deviation: 11, range: 20-65) were randomized to ER (n = 62) or controls (n = 63). Overall 85.6% of participants returned postal questionnaires (87.1% ER group and 84.1% from controls). No significant differences were found between the two groups for response rate (difference between groups = 3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10, 16; P = 0.64) or time to response after adjusting for age, gender, and treatment allocation (chi(2)([3df]) = 7.10; P = 0.07).Conclusion: In the present RCT, we found little evidence for the effectiveness of ERs to increase response rates or time to respond for the return of questionnaires in this study population group. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KW - Reminder system
KW - Data collection
KW - Randomized controlled trial
KW - Research methodology
KW - Short messenger service (sms)
KW - Electronic mail (e-mail)
KW - SMS REMINDERS
KW - MAIL
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.013
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.013
M3 - Article (Academic Journal)
C2 - 21292441
VL - 64
SP - 1001
EP - 1004
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
SN - 0895-4356
IS - 9
ER -