Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial.
Enclosing a pen to improve response rate to postal questionnaire: an embedded randomised controlled trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.12688/f1000research.23651.1
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
SSHeW Study Team
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cunningham-Burley R;Roche J;Fairhurst C;Cockayne S;Hewitt C;Iles-Smith H;Torgerson DJ;SSHeW Study Team
背景：在随机对照试验(RCT)中收集结果数据的问卷回答不佳会影响试验结果的有效性。这项试验中研究(SWAT)的目的是评估包括笔和关于应答率的后续邮寄问卷的有效性。方法：在SSHeW(医疗工作者中的止滑)中嵌入一个双臂RCT，SSHeW是一种减少NHS工作人员滑倒的防滑鞋试验。所有参与者被随机分为1：1，在他们的后续调查问卷中接受钢笔或不接受钢笔。主要结果是返回调查问卷的参与者的比例。次要结果是：答复的时间、答复的完整性，以及是否需要邮寄提醒通知。数据用Logistic回归、线性回归和COX比例风险回归进行分析。结果：总体而言，1466名SSHEW试验参与者随机进入SWAT。总共有13名参与者在收到后续问卷前退出了东道主试验，728名参与者在问卷中收到了一支笔，725名没有收到笔。67.7%的笔组和64.7%没有收到笔的组收回了问卷。两组的回复率没有显著差异(OR 1.15，95%CI 0.92至1.43，p=0.22)，问卷的完整性水平也没有显著差异(AMD-0.01，95%CI 0.06至0.05，p=0.77)。没有微弱证据表明PEN组参与者需要提醒和及时回复的比例减少。结论：在SSHeW试验中向参与者发送的跟踪邮寄问卷中包含一支笔并没有在统计学上显著增加应答率。这些结果增加了关于提高试验应答率的证据。试验注册：ISRCTN 33051393(适用于上海卫生与公众卫生研究院)。注册日期：2017年3月14日。
Background: Poor response to questionnaires collecting outcome data in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can affect the validity of trial results. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of including a pen with a follow-up postal questionnaire on response rate. Methods: A two-armed RCT was embedded within SSHeW (Stopping Slips among Healthcare Workers), a trial of slip-resistant footwear to reduce slips in NHS staff. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive a pen or no pen with their follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to response, completeness of response, and whether a postal reminder notice was required. Data were analysed using logistic regression, linear regression and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Overall, 1466 SSHEW trial participants were randomised into the SWAT. In total, 13 withdrew from the host trial before they were due to be sent their follow-up questionnaire, 728 participants received a pen with their questionnaire, and 725 did not receive a pen. A questionnaire was returned from 67.7% of the pen group and 64.7% of the group who did not receive a pen. There was no significant difference in return rates between the two groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.43, p=0.22), nor level of completeness of the questionnaires (AMD -0.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.05, p=0.77). There was weak evidence of a reduction in the proportion of participants requiring a reminder and in time to response in the pen group. Conclusion: Inclusion of a pen with the follow-up postal questionnaire sent to participants in the SSHeW trial did not statistically significantly increase the response rate. These results add to the body of evidence around improving response rates in trials. Trial registration: ISRCTN 33051393 (for SSHEW). Registered on 14/03/2017.