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
. 2020 Feb 26:9:154.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.22361.1. eCollection 2020.

An evaluation of a personalised text message reminder compared to a standard text message on postal questionnaire response rates: an embedded randomised controlled trial

Ann Cochrane  1 , Charlie Welch  1 , Caroline Fairhurst  1 , Sarah Cockayne  1 , David J Torgerson  1 ; OTIS Study Group
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

An evaluation of a personalised text message reminder compared to a standard text message on postal questionnaire response rates: an embedded randomised controlled trial

Ann Cochrane et al. F1000Res. .

Abstract

Background: Research outcome data is commonly collected using postal questionnaires; however, poor response can introduce bias and reduce statistical power. Text messaging is simple, cost-effective, and can be customised to the individual. Personalised, reminder text messages may improve response rates. Methods: A two-arm, parallel group 'Study within a Trial' (SWAT) was embedded within the Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS), a randomised controlled trial of a home assessment for falls prevention in older people. OTIS participants who provided a mobile phone number were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either a personalised text message (Title, Surname, plus York Trials Unit (YTU) text) or the standard YTU text alone, prior to receiving their four-month post-randomisation follow-up postal questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants who returned the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to response, completeness of response, requirement of a reminder letter, and cost-effectiveness. Binary data were compared using logistic regression and time to response by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 403 participants were randomised: 201 to the personalised text and 202 to the standard text. Of the 283 participants included in the final analysis, 278 (98.2%) returned their questionnaire; 136 (97.8%) for the personalised text versus 142 (98.6%) for the standard text (adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.88, p=0.63). The median time to response was nine days in both groups. In total, 271 (97.5%) participants returned a complete questionnaire; 133 (97.8%) in the personalised text versus 138 (97.2%) for the standard text. In total, 21 reminder letters were sent. The additional cost of personalised text messages was £0.04 per participant retained. Conclusions: Personalised texts were not superior to standard texts in any outcome assessed in our study. Further SWATs are needed to perform a meta-analysis and obtain more evidence. Registration: ISRCTN22202133; SWAT 35.

Keywords: Randomised Controlled Trial; SMS text; SWAT; personalised; postal questionnaire; reminder.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests were disclosed.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. The flow of participants through the embedded trial.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Kaplan-Meier curve for time to questionnaire return.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Torgerson D, Torgerson C: Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the Social Sciences.Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan;2008. 10.1057/9780230583993 - DOI
    1. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, et al. : Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15(1):399. 10.1186/1745-6215-15-399 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adamson J, Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ: Producing better evidence on how to improve randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2015;351:h4923. 10.1136/bmj.h4923 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Madurasinghe VW, Sandra Eldridge on behalf of MRC START Group and Gordon Forbes on behalf of the START Expert Consensus Group : Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trial. Trials. 2016;17:27. 10.1186/s13063-015-1126-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, et al. : Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)? Trials. 2018;19(1):139. 10.1186/s13063-018-2535-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources