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
. 2021 Oct 20;22(1):893.
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04787-4.

Does the use of telephone reminders to increase survey response rates affect outcome estimates? An ancillary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients with low back pain

Christina Lyngsø Udby  1   2 , Allan Riis  3   4 , Janus Laust Thomsen  5 , Nanna Rolving  6   7
Affiliations

Does the use of telephone reminders to increase survey response rates affect outcome estimates? An ancillary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients with low back pain

Christina Lyngsø Udby et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: Research is often undertaken using patient-reported outcomes from questionnaires. Achieving a high response rate demands expensive and time-consuming methods like telephone reminders. However, it is unknown whether telephone reminders change outcome estimates or only affect the response rate in research of populations with low back pain (LBP). The aim is to compare baseline characteristics and the change in outcome between patients responding before and after receiving a telephone reminder.

Methods: This is an ancillary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study employing questionnaires from 812 adults with LBP lasting more than 3 months. Patients not responding to the 52-week questionnaire were sent reminder emails after two and 3 weeks and delivered postal reminders after 4 weeks. Patients still not responding were contacted by telephone, with a maximum of two attempts. Patients were categorised into three groups: 1) patients responding before a telephone reminder was performed; 2) patients responding after the telephone reminder and 3) patients not responding at all. A positive outcome was defined as a 30% improvement on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire after 52 weeks.

Results: A total of 695 patients (85.2%) responded. Of these, 643 patients were classified in Group 1 and 52 patients were classified in Group 2. One hundred seventeen were classified in Group 3. No differences in outcome or baseline characteristics was found. In Group 1, 41.3% had a positive outcome, and in Group 2 48.9% had a positive outcome (P = 0.297). In group 3, non-respondents were younger, more often unemployed, more often smokers, more often reported co-morbidity, and reported higher depression scores than respondents.

Conclusions: Using a telephone reminder had no consequence on outcome estimates nor were there any differences in baseline characteristics between patients who responded before or after the telephone reminder.

Trial registration: The initial trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03058315 ).

Keywords: Low Back pain; Patient outcome assessment; Reminder systems; Research design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AR is member of the editorial board at BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of patient participation and data collection. NOTE: 812 patients with low back pain referred from general practice to the regional Spine Centre at Silkeborg Regional Hospital in Denmark were included in the study. Six hundred forty-three responded without needing a telephone reminder and 52 responded after receiving a telephone reminder
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2368–2383. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hansson EK, Hansson TH. The costs for persons sick-listed more than one month because of low back or neck problems. A two-year prospective study of Swedish patients. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(4):337–345. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0731-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lambeek LC, van Tulder MW, Swinkels IC, Koppes LL, Anema JR, van Mechelen W. The trend in total cost of back pain in the Netherlands in the period 2002 to 2007. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36(13):1050–1058. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e70488. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Norlund AI, Waddel G, Nachemson AL, Jonsson E. Cost of back pain in some OECD countries. Neck And back pain: The Scientific Evidence of Causes, Diagnosis Treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams, Wilkins; 2000. pp. 421–425.
    1. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–2367. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data