Keywords
SWAT, Randomised Controlled Trial, personalised, SMS text, postal questionnaire, reminder
This article is included in the Studies Within A Trial (SWAT) collection.
SWAT, Randomised Controlled Trial, personalised, SMS text, postal questionnaire, reminder
Evaluating strategies to improve the efficiency of conducting trials is a priority. Achieving high response rates for postal follow-up questionnaires is challenging; non-response threatens study validity through bias and reduced effective sample size1. Rigorous evaluation can be achieved by undertaking a Study within a Trial (SWAT)2–4. A SWAT is a self-contained study embedded within a host trial, which aims to evaluate an intervention5.
There are many strategies towards improving response to postal questionnaires including short messaging service (SMS) text prompts; however, uncertainty remains6,7 as to their effectiveness8–13. Furthermore, some evidence exists14 to suggest that personalised texts, in which recipients were addressed by name, increased average payment of delinquent fines compared to non-personalised texts.
Here, we report the results of a SWAT evaluating a personalised text compared to a standard (non-personalised) text on postal questionnaire response rates in an elderly population.
This two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) was embedded within OTIS, a UK-based modified cohort RCT of occupational therapist-led home environmental assessment for the prevention of falls in older people15. This SWAT was registered as part of the host trial (OTIS) registration (ISRCTN22202133; date registered: 20.06.2016) and with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT 35; date registered: 20.02.2016).
Eligible OTIS participants who agreed to receive text communication during participation, provided a mobile number, and were due to receive their four-month post-randomisation postal questionnaire, were randomised into this SWAT.
Participants received a single text four days after their four-month questionnaire was posted (Table 1).
The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned their four-month postal questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: time to response, completeness of response, use of a reminder letter, and cost-effectiveness (Table 2).
As is usual for embedded trials, no formal power calculation was undertaken3–5 as the sample size was constrained by the number of participants available in the host trial.
Eligible participants (n=403) were randomised (1:1) using randomly varying blocks of four and six, stratified by OTIS trial group allocation. Allocations were generated by the OTIS trial statistician using Stata version 13.0, before being shared with the YTU data management staff responsible for the setup of the text messaging system. Eligible participants were then matched against the generated sequence in the order that they were randomised to the main trial.
Participants were not aware of their involvement within this SWAT; only to the OTIS trial group allocation. Study team members performing administrative, statistical or health economic roles were also not blinded, but data entry staff were.
Approvals were granted by NHS West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 3 (ref. 16/WS/0154); the University of York, Department of Health Sciences Research Governance Committee and the Health Research Authority. Consent for the SWAT was waived by the above-named Research Ethics Committee.
Analyses were conducted in Stata version 15.016. Baseline characteristics are summarised descriptively (Table 3). Binary outcomes were analysed using logistic regression, and time to questionnaire return was analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Time to return was truncated at 120 days allowing for the next follow-up time point (eight months post-randomisation) and illustrated using a Kaplan-Meier curve. Models were adjusted for SWAT and OTIS trial allocation. Unadjusted analyses of both binary and time to event outcomes are also presented. The costs incurred retaining participants are summarised descriptively (Table 5).
Baseline characteristic | Personalised texts (N = 139) | Standard texts (N = 144) | Total (N = 283) |
---|---|---|---|
OTIS trial allocation, n (%) | |||
Usual care | 96 (69.1) | 99 (68.8) | 195 (68.9) |
Intervention | 43 (30.9) | 45 (31.3) | 88 (31.1) |
Missing | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Age (years) | |||
N | 139 | 144 | 283 |
Mean (SD) | 77.8 (6.1) | 76.7 (5.7) | 77.3 (5.9) |
Median (1st Q, 3rd Q) | 76.8 (72.8, 81.4) | 75.5 (72.3, 80.5) | 76.0 (72.7, 81.1) |
Sex, n (%) | |||
Male | 45 (32.4) | 57 (39.6) | 102 (36.0) |
Female | 94 (67.6) | 87 (60.4) | 181 (64.0) |
Missing | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Taking >4 prescribed medications, n (%) | |||
Yes | 61 (43.9) | 69 (47.9) | 130 (45.9) |
No | 77 (55.4) | 74 (51.4) | 151 (53.4) |
Missing | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.7) | 2 (0.7) |
EQ-5D-5L – Mobility, n (%) | |||
No problems walking | 49 (35.3) | 67 (46.5) | 116 (41.0) |
Slight problems walking | 37 (26.6) | 27 (18.8) | 64 (22.6) |
Moderate problems walking | 38 (27.3) | 37 (25.7) | 75 (26.5) |
Severe problems walking | 11 (7.9) | 12 (8.3) | 23 (8.1) |
Unable to walk | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.4) |
Missing | 4 (2.9) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (1.4) |
EQ-5D-5L – Self-care, n (%) | |||
No problems washing/dressing | 104 (74.8) | 117 (81.3) | 221 (78.1) |
Slight problems washing/dressing | 25 (18.0) | 18 (12.5) | 43 (15.2) |
Moderate problems washing/dressing | 8 (5.8) | 7 (4.9) | 15 (5.3) |
Severe problems washing/dressing | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.7) | 2 (0.7) |
Unable to wash/dress myself | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Missing | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.7) | 2 (0.7) |
EQ-5D-5L – Usual activities, n (%) | |||
No problems doing usual activities | 52 (37.4) | 69 (47.9) | 121 (42.8) |
Slight problems doing usual activities | 45 (32.4) | 40 (27.8) | 85 (30.0) |
Moderate problems doing usual activities | 25 (18.0) | 29 (20.1) | 54 (19.1) |
Severe problems doing usual activities | 15 (10.8) | 4 (2.8) | 19 (6.7) |
Unable to do usual activities | 1 (0.7) | 2 (1.4) | 3 (1.1) |
Missing | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.4) |
EQ-5D-5L – Pain/discomfort, n (%) | |||
No pain or discomfort | 24 (17.3) | 28 (19.4) | 52 (18.4) |
Slight pain or discomfort | 55 (39.6) | 60 (41.7) | 115 (40.6) |
Moderate pain or discomfort | 43 (30.9) | 44 (30.6) | 87 (30.7) |
Severe pain or discomfort | 14 (10.1) | 11 (7.6) | 25 (8.8) |
Extreme pain or discomfort | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.4) |
Missing | 3 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (1.1) |
EQ-5D-5L – Anxiety/depression, n (%) | |||
Not anxious or depressed | 78 (56.1) | 91 (63.2) | 169 (59.7) |
Slightly anxious or depressed | 37 (26.6) | 39 (27.1) | 76 (26.9) |
Moderately anxious or depressed | 15 (10.8) | 8 (5.6) | 23 (8.1) |
Severely anxious or depressed | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.4) |
Extremely anxious or depressed | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.4) |
Missing | 7 (5.0) | 6 (4.2) | 13 (4.6) |
EQ-5D-5L – General health (0 – 100)* | |||
N | 139 | 143 | 282 |
Mean (SD) | 74.6 (15.6) | 75.2 (17.0) | 74.9 (16.3) |
Median (1st Q, 3rd Q) | 80.0 (65.0, 85.0) | 80.0 (66.0, 90.0) | 80.0 (66.0, 88.0) |
Delays setting-up the text messaging system meant no texts were sent prior to 7th December 2017. In total 120 (29.8%) randomised participants were due texts before this date. These participants are therefore excluded from the analysis. Participants (n=283) due texts on or after this date were analysed as randomised (Figure 1).
Results are presented in Table 4. A total of 136 (97.8%) participants in the personalised text group returned their four-month questionnaire, compared with 142 (98.6%) in the standardised text group (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.88, p=0.63). In total, 10 personalised text participants were sent a reminder letter and 11 in the standard text arm. Of 278 returned questionnaires, 271 (97.5%) were completed: 97.8% in the personalised arm and 97.2% in the standard text arm (adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.28 to 5.89, p=0.75).
Outcome | Personalised | Standard | Analysis | OR (95% CI) (personalised/standard) | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questionnaire returns | 136/139 (97.8%) | 142/144 (98.6%) | Unadjusted | 0.64 (0.11 to 3.88) | 0.63 |
Adjusted* | 0.64 (0.10 to 3.88) | 0.63 | |||
Reminder letters sent | 10/139 (7.2%) | 11/144 (7.6%) | Unadjusted | 0.94 (0.38 to 2.28) | 0.89 |
Adjusted | 0.94 (0.38 to 2.28) | 0.89 | |||
Complete questionnaires (returned only) | 133/136 (97.8%) | 138/142 (97.2%) | Unadjusted | 1.29 (0.28 to 5.85) | 0.75 |
Adjusted | 1.29 (0.28 to 5.89) | 0.75 | |||
Complete questionnaires (all) | 133/139 (95.7%) | 138/144 (95.8%) | Unadjusted | 0.96 (0.30 to 3.06) | 0.95 |
Adjusted | 0.96 (0.30 to 3.07) | 0.95 |
The median time to return was nine days in both groups. A log-rank test gave a p-value of 0.57; hence, the data provide little evidence to reject the hypothesis that the two groups have the same survival function. The Cox proportional hazards model corroborated this (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.35, p=0.60) (Figure 2). Examination of the log-log plots of the estimated survival functions, and a global test of the Schoenfeld residuals suggested the proportional hazards assumption was reasonable (p=0.52).
Standard texts were 159 characters (costing £0.048), whereas personalised texts ranged from 166 to 178 characters (costing £0.096). Other costs included reminder letters and additional questionnaires posted to non-responders (£2.35 each) (Table 5).
These results provide little support to the hypothesis that personalisation of texts improves postal questionnaire return rate compared to standard texts, in this population. There was also little evidence to suggest that personalisation led to quicker returns of questionnaires, improved questionnaire completion, or reduced the requirement for a reminder letter to elicit a response. The additional cost of personalised texts was £0.04 per participant retained.
Eligible participants who provided a mobile phone number at enrolment to the host trial (78.4%) was lower than antipated. Nearly 30% of SWAT participants had to be excluded from analysis due to problems with text automation. Furthermore, the high proportion of returned postal questionnaires in the standard text group meant only very small improvements could ever be observed or that a ceiling effect may have been reached. Thus, a large sample size would be required in order to provide strong evidence against the null hypothesis in favour of personalisation. Together, the small sample size and high baseline event rate mean this SWAT provides limited evidence for (or against) the personalisation of texts as a means to improving retention of participants.
Given the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of personalising text messages, we feel that further investigation via RCTs is warranted. Meta-analysis could be used to obtain a more precise estimate for the effectiveness of personalising texts and explore variation across different participant characteristics.
Open Science Framework: OTIS Trial Text SWAT. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KH75X17.
This project contains the following underlying data:
Open Science Framework: CONSORT checklist for ‘An evaluation of a personalised text message reminder compared to a standard text message on postal questionnaire response rates: an embedded randomised controlled trial’. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KH75X17.
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
The authors would also like to thank the embedded trial participants who returned trial questionnaires.
This paper was written by the authors on behalf of the OTIS Study Group, which is made up of the following individuals: Sophie Boyes (York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust); Sarah Cockayne (University of York); Shelley Crossland (Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust); Avril Drummond (University of Nottingham); Caroline Fairhurst (University of York); Simon Gilbody (University of York); Catherine Hewitt (University of York); Sarah E Lamb (University of Exeter); Jennifer McCaffery (University of York); Alison Pighills (Mackay Base Hospital; Mackay Australia and James Cook University); Clare Relton (Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry); Sara Rodgers (University of York); Sarah Ronaldson (University of York); Katie Whiteside (University of York), and David J. Torgerson (University of York). With the exception of Ann Cochrane (University of York), who supported data collection for the host OTIS trial, all members of the OTIS Study Group were involved in designing this SWAT.
The authors acknowledge Adwoa Parker (University of York) for pre-registering this embedded trial with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT 35).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
References
1. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, et al.: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009. MR000008 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Evidence-based Data Collection
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Epidemiology and Clinical Trial Methodology
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 26 Feb 20 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)