A Nested Randomised Controlled Trial of a Newsletter and Post-it Note Did not Increase Postal Questionnaire Response Rates in a Falls Prevention Trial

Sara Anita Rodgers; Illary Sbizzera; Elizabeth Sarah Cockayne; Caroline Marie Fairhurst; Sarah Lamb; Wesley Vernon; Judith M Watson; Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt; David John Torgerson

A Nested Randomised Controlled Trial of a Newsletter and Post-it Note Did not Increase Postal Questionnaire Response Rates in a Falls Prevention Trial

Sara Anita Rodgers, Illary Sbizzera, Elizabeth Sarah Cockayne, Caroline Marie Fairhurst, Sarah Lamb, Wesley Vernon, Judith M Watson, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, David John Torgerson

Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background: Attrition (i.e. when participants do not return the questionnaires)is a problem for many randomised controlled trials. The resultant loss of dataleads to a reduction in statistical power and can lead to bias. The aim of thisstudy was to assess whether a pre-notification newsletter and/or a handwrittenor printed Post-it® note sticker, as a reminder, increased postal questionnaireresponse rates for participants of randomised controlled trials.Method: This study was a factorial trial embedded within a trial of afalls-prevention intervention among men and women aged ≥65 years underpodiatric care. Participants were randomised into one of six groups: newsletterplus handwritten Post-it®; newsletter plus printed Post-it®; newsletter only;handwritten Post-it® only; printed Post-it® only; or no newsletter or Post-it®.The results were combined with those from previous embedded randomisedcontrolled trials in a meta-analysis.Results: The 12-month response rate was 803/826 (97.2%) (newsletter 95.1%,no newsletter 99.3%, printed Post-it® 97.5%, handwritten Post-it® 97.1%, noPost-it® 97.1%). Pre-notification with a newsletter had a detrimental effect onresponse rates (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48; p<0.01)and time to return the questionnaire (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75to 0.99; p=0.04). No other statistically significant differences were observedbetween the intervention groups on response rates, time to response, and theneed for a reminder.Conclusions: Post-it® notes have been shown to be ineffective in threeembedded trials, whereas the evidence for newsletter reminders is stilluncertain.KeywordsRandomised controlled trial; randomisation; embedded trial; newsletter;Post-it® note; response rate

Original language	English
Article number	7:1083
Number of pages	10
Journal	F1000research
Volume	7
Publication status	Published - 16 Jul 2018

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

5694a312-ce04-445a-9b35-e44aa6d73f69_14591_-_sara_rogers (1)
© 2018 Rodgers S et al.
Final published version, 965 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{ec550cc796bd4cfebb36e37293d3d348,

title = "A Nested Randomised Controlled Trial of a Newsletter and Post-it Note Did not Increase Postal Questionnaire Response Rates in a Falls Prevention Trial",

abstract = "Background: Attrition (i.e. when participants do not return the questionnaires)is a problem for many randomised controlled trials. The resultant loss of dataleads to a reduction in statistical power and can lead to bias. The aim of thisstudy was to assess whether a pre-notification newsletter and/or a handwrittenor printed Post-it{\textregistered} note sticker, as a reminder, increased postal questionnaireresponse rates for participants of randomised controlled trials.Method: This study was a factorial trial embedded within a trial of afalls-prevention intervention among men and women aged ≥65 years underpodiatric care. Participants were randomised into one of six groups: newsletterplus handwritten Post-it{\textregistered}; newsletter plus printed Post-it{\textregistered}; newsletter only;handwritten Post-it{\textregistered} only; printed Post-it{\textregistered} only; or no newsletter or Post-it{\textregistered}.The results were combined with those from previous embedded randomisedcontrolled trials in a meta-analysis.Results: The 12-month response rate was 803/826 (97.2%) (newsletter 95.1%,no newsletter 99.3%, printed Post-it{\textregistered} 97.5%, handwritten Post-it{\textregistered} 97.1%, noPost-it{\textregistered} 97.1%). Pre-notification with a newsletter had a detrimental effect onresponse rates (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48; p<0.01)and time to return the questionnaire (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75to 0.99; p=0.04). No other statistically significant differences were observedbetween the intervention groups on response rates, time to response, and theneed for a reminder.Conclusions: Post-it{\textregistered} notes have been shown to be ineffective in threeembedded trials, whereas the evidence for newsletter reminders is stilluncertain.KeywordsRandomised controlled trial; randomisation; embedded trial; newsletter;Post-it{\textregistered} note; response rate",

author = "Rodgers, {Sara Anita} and Illary Sbizzera and Cockayne, {Elizabeth Sarah} and Fairhurst, {Caroline Marie} and Sarah Lamb and Wesley Vernon and Watson, {Judith M} and Hewitt, {Catherine Elizabeth} and Torgerson, {David John}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2018 Rodgers S et al.",

year = "2018",

month = jul,

day = "16",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

journal = "F1000research",

issn = "2046-1402",

publisher = "F1000 Research Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Nested Randomised Controlled Trial of a Newsletter and Post-it Note Did not Increase Postal Questionnaire Response Rates in a Falls Prevention Trial

AU - Rodgers, Sara Anita

AU - Sbizzera, Illary

AU - Cockayne, Elizabeth Sarah

AU - Fairhurst, Caroline Marie

AU - Lamb, Sarah

AU - Vernon, Wesley

AU - Watson, Judith M

AU - Hewitt, Catherine Elizabeth

AU - Torgerson, David John

PY - 2018/7/16

Y1 - 2018/7/16

N2 - Background: Attrition (i.e. when participants do not return the questionnaires)is a problem for many randomised controlled trials. The resultant loss of dataleads to a reduction in statistical power and can lead to bias. The aim of thisstudy was to assess whether a pre-notification newsletter and/or a handwrittenor printed Post-it® note sticker, as a reminder, increased postal questionnaireresponse rates for participants of randomised controlled trials.Method: This study was a factorial trial embedded within a trial of afalls-prevention intervention among men and women aged ≥65 years underpodiatric care. Participants were randomised into one of six groups: newsletterplus handwritten Post-it®; newsletter plus printed Post-it®; newsletter only;handwritten Post-it® only; printed Post-it® only; or no newsletter or Post-it®.The results were combined with those from previous embedded randomisedcontrolled trials in a meta-analysis.Results: The 12-month response rate was 803/826 (97.2%) (newsletter 95.1%,no newsletter 99.3%, printed Post-it® 97.5%, handwritten Post-it® 97.1%, noPost-it® 97.1%). Pre-notification with a newsletter had a detrimental effect onresponse rates (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48; p<0.01)and time to return the questionnaire (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75to 0.99; p=0.04). No other statistically significant differences were observedbetween the intervention groups on response rates, time to response, and theneed for a reminder.Conclusions: Post-it® notes have been shown to be ineffective in threeembedded trials, whereas the evidence for newsletter reminders is stilluncertain.KeywordsRandomised controlled trial; randomisation; embedded trial; newsletter;Post-it® note; response rate

AB - Background: Attrition (i.e. when participants do not return the questionnaires)is a problem for many randomised controlled trials. The resultant loss of dataleads to a reduction in statistical power and can lead to bias. The aim of thisstudy was to assess whether a pre-notification newsletter and/or a handwrittenor printed Post-it® note sticker, as a reminder, increased postal questionnaireresponse rates for participants of randomised controlled trials.Method: This study was a factorial trial embedded within a trial of afalls-prevention intervention among men and women aged ≥65 years underpodiatric care. Participants were randomised into one of six groups: newsletterplus handwritten Post-it®; newsletter plus printed Post-it®; newsletter only;handwritten Post-it® only; printed Post-it® only; or no newsletter or Post-it®.The results were combined with those from previous embedded randomisedcontrolled trials in a meta-analysis.Results: The 12-month response rate was 803/826 (97.2%) (newsletter 95.1%,no newsletter 99.3%, printed Post-it® 97.5%, handwritten Post-it® 97.1%, noPost-it® 97.1%). Pre-notification with a newsletter had a detrimental effect onresponse rates (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48; p<0.01)and time to return the questionnaire (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75to 0.99; p=0.04). No other statistically significant differences were observedbetween the intervention groups on response rates, time to response, and theneed for a reminder.Conclusions: Post-it® notes have been shown to be ineffective in threeembedded trials, whereas the evidence for newsletter reminders is stilluncertain.KeywordsRandomised controlled trial; randomisation; embedded trial; newsletter;Post-it® note; response rate

M3 - Article

SN - 2046-1402

VL - 7

JO - F1000research

JF - F1000research

M1 - 7:1083

ER -