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
Prior-notification postcard and information pack intervention designs.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig3: Prior-notification postcard and information pack intervention designs.

Mentions: Through PEARL, we developed three interventions (the intervention processes and naming conventions are summarized in Fig. 2), each based on a comparison between ALSPAC's standard approach and a modified approach thought likely to improve response to the re-enrollment and consent request or to encourage response from the harder-to-engage groups. The first intervention (hereafter the “prior-notification intervention”) consisted of a postcard (hereafter “prior-notification postcard”), sent to individuals in the intervention arm a week before the second intervention (Fig. 3). The comparison group received no prior contact (hereafter “no prior-notification mailing”).


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)

Prior-notification postcard and information pack intervention designs.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig3: Prior-notification postcard and information pack intervention designs.
Mentions: Through PEARL, we developed three interventions (the intervention processes and naming conventions are summarized in Fig. 2), each based on a comparison between ALSPAC's standard approach and a modified approach thought likely to improve response to the re-enrollment and consent request or to encourage response from the harder-to-engage groups. The first intervention (hereafter the “prior-notification intervention”) consisted of a postcard (hereafter “prior-notification postcard”), sent to individuals in the intervention arm a week before the second intervention (Fig. 3). The comparison group received no prior contact (hereafter “no prior-notification mailing”).

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