Is two better than one? Maximising follow-up of self-reported outcome measures for a stroke survivor population: Results from a study within a trial in the LoTS2Care feasibility study

Lauren A Moreau, I. Holloway, Seline Ozer, A. Forster, C. Hulme, S. Hartley, A. Farrin
{"title":"Is two better than one? Maximising follow-up of self-reported outcome measures for a stroke survivor population: Results from a study within a trial in the LoTS2Care feasibility study","authors":"Lauren A Moreau, I. Holloway, Seline Ozer, A. Forster, C. Hulme, S. Hartley, A. Farrin","doi":"10.1177/26320843221106952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Improving outcome data collection rates is an essential part of managing clinical trials and ensures statistical power and generalisability of results are maintained. Studies within a trial (SWATs) provide a robust methodology to investigate the most efficient methods to maximise outcome follow-up. Methods: LoTS2Care, a feasibility cluster Randomised Controlled Trial, recruited 269 stroke survivors across 10 services, and incorporated a SWAT to evaluate the effect of questionnaire booklet format (one booklet or two) on follow-up rates for self-reported postal outcomes at 6 and 9 months post-recruitment. Available participants were individually randomised (1 : 1) by the Clinical Trials Research Unit and follow-up rates in the two groups were compared. Results: At 6 months post-recruitment, 254 participants were randomised: 126 to receive (125 posted) the single booklet; 128 to receive two booklets. By 9 months post-recruitment, 116 and 123 participants were still available in each group, respectively. For participants randomised to two booklets, return of at least one of the booklets was considered as ‘followed-up’. At 6 months, 114/125 (91.2%) participants sent the single booklet returned it, compared to 108/128 (84.4%) sent two (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 4.19). By 9 months, 108/116 (93.1%) participants returned the single booklet, compared to 105/123 (85.4%) sent two (OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 5.55). Conclusions: The SWAT was an inexpensive, straightforward way to test how booklet format affected follow-up rates. Larger participant numbers would be required for conclusive results. These initial findings, however, suggest that including all outcome measures in a single booklet may maximise return rates, especially in trials with similar populations, such as those living with brain injury, cognitive or speech impairment or older people.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"3 1","pages":"127 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843221106952","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Improving outcome data collection rates is an essential part of managing clinical trials and ensures statistical power and generalisability of results are maintained. Studies within a trial (SWATs) provide a robust methodology to investigate the most efficient methods to maximise outcome follow-up. Methods: LoTS2Care, a feasibility cluster Randomised Controlled Trial, recruited 269 stroke survivors across 10 services, and incorporated a SWAT to evaluate the effect of questionnaire booklet format (one booklet or two) on follow-up rates for self-reported postal outcomes at 6 and 9 months post-recruitment. Available participants were individually randomised (1 : 1) by the Clinical Trials Research Unit and follow-up rates in the two groups were compared. Results: At 6 months post-recruitment, 254 participants were randomised: 126 to receive (125 posted) the single booklet; 128 to receive two booklets. By 9 months post-recruitment, 116 and 123 participants were still available in each group, respectively. For participants randomised to two booklets, return of at least one of the booklets was considered as ‘followed-up’. At 6 months, 114/125 (91.2%) participants sent the single booklet returned it, compared to 108/128 (84.4%) sent two (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 4.19). By 9 months, 108/116 (93.1%) participants returned the single booklet, compared to 105/123 (85.4%) sent two (OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 5.55). Conclusions: The SWAT was an inexpensive, straightforward way to test how booklet format affected follow-up rates. Larger participant numbers would be required for conclusive results. These initial findings, however, suggest that including all outcome measures in a single booklet may maximise return rates, especially in trials with similar populations, such as those living with brain injury, cognitive or speech impairment or older people.
两个比一个好吗?最大限度地跟踪中风幸存者群体的自我报告结果:LoTS2Care可行性研究试验中的一项研究结果
背景:提高结果数据收集率是管理临床试验的重要组成部分,并确保保持结果的统计能力和通用性。试验研究(SWAT)提供了一种强有力的方法来研究最大限度地提高结果随访的最有效方法。方法:LoTS2Care是一项可行性集群随机对照试验,在10个服务中招募了269名中风幸存者,并纳入了SWAT,以评估问卷小册子格式(一本或两本)对招募后6个月和9个月自我报告邮寄结果的随访率的影响。临床试验研究单位对可用的参与者进行了单独的随机分组(1:1),并比较了两组的随访率。结果:在招募后6个月,254名参与者被随机分配:126人接受(125人张贴)单行本;128以接收两本小册子。到招募后9个月,每组仍有116名和123名参与者。对于随机分为两本小册子的参与者,至少归还一本小册子被视为“随访”。在6个月时,114/125(91.2%)的参与者发送了一本小册子并返回,相比之下,108/128(84.4%)发送了两本小册子(比值比(OR)1.92,95%置信区间(CI)0.88-4.19)。到了9个月,108/116(93.1%)的参与者返回了单本小册子,测试小册子格式如何影响随访率的简单方法。结论性结果需要更多的参与者。然而,这些初步发现表明,将所有结果测量纳入一本小册子中可能会最大限度地提高回报率,尤其是在类似人群的试验中,如脑损伤、认知或言语障碍患者或老年人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信