Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Jul 8:16:295.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0808-9.

SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial

Kathryn Starr  1 , Gladys McPherson  2 , Mark Forrest  3 , Seonaidh C Cotton  4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial

Kathryn Starr et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are vital in informing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and health-care interventions and policies from the patient's perspective. However, participant non-response may introduce bias and can affect the generalisability of the trial. This study evaluates two interventions aimed at increasing response rates to postal questionnaires within a large, UK-wide RCT: pre-notification via short messenger service (SMS) text prior to sending the initial mailing of trial questionnaires versus no pre-notification; for non-responders to the initial mailing of the questionnaires, an e-mail reminder (containing a hyperlink to complete the questionnaire online) versus a postal reminder.

Methods: This study is a 2 × 2 partial factorial design RCT nested within an RCT of medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stone disease. Participants who supplied a mobile telephone number were randomly assigned to receive an SMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery or no pre-notification. Those who supplied an e-mail address were randomly assigned to receive a questionnaire reminder by e-mail or post. Participants could be randomly assigned to the pre-notification comparison or the reminder comparison or both. The primary outcome measure was response rate at each questionnaire time point.

Results: Four hundred eighteen participants were randomly assigned to the SMS pre-notification comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 41 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 11.1). The intervention had no effect on response rate at either questionnaire time point. In subgroup analyses, SMS pre-notification increased response rates in women but only at the first questionnaire time point. One hundred nineteen participants were randomly assigned to the reminder comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 42 years with an SD of 12.1). There was no difference in response rate in those who received an e-mail reminder compared with those who received a postal reminder.

Conclusions: SMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery and email delivery of questionnaire reminders did not improve response rates. There was some evidence to suggest that SMS text pre-notification may be effective in women, and further studies to investigate this may be warranted. E-mail reminders for participants to return their postal questionnaire could be advantageous given that response rates were similar following either type of reminder and the low cost of delivering an e-mail compared with a postal reminder. This is a substudy of the SUSPEND trial (ISCTRN69423238) (18 Nov. 2010).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) diagram: pre-notification comparison. ITT = Intention-to-treat
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) diagram: reminder comparison. ITT = Intention-to-treat
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Ploug Hansen H, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000395. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Armstrong B, White E, Saracci R. Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. In: Kelsey J, Marmot M, Stolley P, Vessey M, editors. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 1995. p. 294.
    1. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):MR000008. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brueton V, Tierney J, Stenning S, Nazareth I, Meredith S, Harding S, et al. Systematic review of strategies to reduce attrition in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Booker C, Harding S, Benzeval M. A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:249. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-249. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources