Limits...
Professionally designed information materials and telephone reminders improved consent response rates: evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort study.

Boyd A, Tilling K, Cornish R, Davies A, Humphries K, Macleod J - J Clin Epidemiol (2015)

Bottom Line: The primary outcome was return of the consent form ("response"), with consent decision being the secondary outcome.Response rates were 2.7% higher (95% confidence interval: -0.06, 5.5%; P = 0.06) among those receiving designed packs than among those receiving standard packs and 6.4% higher (2.3, 10.6%; P = 0.002) among those receiving phone reminders (compared with postal reminders).The prior-notification postcard did not influence response rates [difference = 0% (-2.8, 2.8%; P = 1.0)], and we found no evidence that the communication method influenced consent decision.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ALSPAC, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK. Electronic address: a.w.boyd@bristol.ac.uk.

Show MeSH
RCT sample selection and allocation to intervention groups. RCT, randomized controlled trial; ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4503222&req=5

fig1: RCT sample selection and allocation to intervention groups. RCT, randomized controlled trial; ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.

Mentions: The RCT evaluated three variations in how consent materials were provided. These were sent to the PEARL RCT sample, which was drawn from the full PEARL sample (Fig. 1). As differing participation histories could complicate the interpretation of our results, we restricted the PEARL RCT sample selection to young adults who had recently participated (those attending ALSPAC clinical assessments aged 15 or 17 or returning the 16-year questionnaire). To control for differing extents of individual participation history, we stratified our sample using a participation score (see Section 2.4). Where an individual selected for the trial was a twin, we allocated the nontrial twin to the same intervention groups and administered the interventions as if they were part of the trial. Nontrial twins were excluded from analysis. The RCT was conducted from April 18, 2011, until December 23, 2012.


Professionally designed information materials and telephone reminders improved consent response rates: evidence from an RCT nested within a cohort study.

Boyd A, Tilling K, Cornish R, Davies A, Humphries K, Macleod J - J Clin Epidemiol (2015)

RCT sample selection and allocation to intervention groups. RCT, randomized controlled trial; ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4503222&req=5

fig1: RCT sample selection and allocation to intervention groups. RCT, randomized controlled trial; ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
Mentions: The RCT evaluated three variations in how consent materials were provided. These were sent to the PEARL RCT sample, which was drawn from the full PEARL sample (Fig. 1). As differing participation histories could complicate the interpretation of our results, we restricted the PEARL RCT sample selection to young adults who had recently participated (those attending ALSPAC clinical assessments aged 15 or 17 or returning the 16-year questionnaire). To control for differing extents of individual participation history, we stratified our sample using a participation score (see Section 2.4). Where an individual selected for the trial was a twin, we allocated the nontrial twin to the same intervention groups and administered the interventions as if they were part of the trial. Nontrial twins were excluded from analysis. The RCT was conducted from April 18, 2011, until December 23, 2012.

Bottom Line: The primary outcome was return of the consent form ("response"), with consent decision being the secondary outcome.Response rates were 2.7% higher (95% confidence interval: -0.06, 5.5%; P = 0.06) among those receiving designed packs than among those receiving standard packs and 6.4% higher (2.3, 10.6%; P = 0.002) among those receiving phone reminders (compared with postal reminders).The prior-notification postcard did not influence response rates [difference = 0% (-2.8, 2.8%; P = 1.0)], and we found no evidence that the communication method influenced consent decision.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ALSPAC, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK. Electronic address: a.w.boyd@bristol.ac.uk.

Show MeSH