Increasing follow-up questionnaire response rates in a randomized controlled trial of telehealth for depression: three embedded controlled studies

Edwards, Louisa; Salisbury, Chris; Horspool, Kimberley; Foster, Alexis; Garner, Katy; Montgomery, Alan A.

doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1234-3

Trials

Table 4 Effect of email intervention on questionnaire completion, number of questionnaire reminders, and questionnaire completion rate

From: Increasing follow-up questionnaire response rates in a randomized controlled trial of telehealth for depression: three embedded controlled studies

	Control	Urgent email	Unadjusted odds ratio, b or hazard ratio	95 % confidence interval; P	Adjusted odds ratio, b or hazard ratio^a	95 % confidence interval; P
Primary analysis^b
Completed questionnaire	109/116 (94)	104/115 (90)	0.61	0.23, 1.63; 0.32	0.53	0.19, 1.49; 0.23
Sensitivity analysis
Only those who required a reminder: Number of reminders = 0	54/61 (89)	69/80 (86)	0.81	0.30, 2.24; 0.69	0.66	0.22, 1.95; 0.45
Secondary analysis^c
Number of reminders = 0	55/116 (47)	35/115 (30)
Number of reminders = 1	26/116 (22)	35/115 (30)
Number of reminders = 2	10/116 (9)	16/115 (14)
Number of reminders = 3	7/116 (6)	12/115 (10)
Number of reminders = 4	7/116 (6)	8/115 (7)
Number of reminders = 5	11/116 (9)	9/115 (8)	0.27	−0.15, 0.69; 0.20	0.25	−0.18, 0.68; 0.26
Sensitivity analysis^c
Only those who required a reminder: number of reminders = 0	0/61 (0)	1/80 (1)
Number of reminders = 1	26/61 (43)	34/80 (43)
Number of reminders = 2	10/61 (16)	16/80 (20)
Number of reminders = 3	7/61 (11)	12/80 (15)
Number of reminders = 4	7/61 (11)	8/80 (10)
Number of reminders = 5	11/61 (18)	9/80 (11)	−0.22	−0.72, 0.28; 0.38	−0.15	−0.65, 0.36; 0.56
Secondary analysis^d
Time to complete questionnaire, median days	9.0	11.0	0.84	0.64, 1.10; 0.22	0.88	0.67, 1.15; 0.34
Sensitivity analysis^d
Only those who required a reminder: time to complete questionnaire, median days	22.5	19.0	1.12	0.78, 1.60; 0.54	1.08	0.75, 1.55; 0.67

Data are reported as number/total (percent), unless otherwise indicated. All primary analyses are intention-to-treat analyses. Sensitivity analyses included only those participants who required a reminder (excluded those who responded before a reminder was due and those who opted to complete the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) over the phone before being sent any form of questionnaire) and, in addition to this, removing two outliers in terms of length of time it took to return the questionnaire (>80 days)
^aAnalyses adjusted by participant sex, baseline age and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score, main trial allocation arm, questionnaire method sent (paper or online)
^bLogistic regression analysis of pre-call group allocation on whether the 8-month questionnaire was completed or not (odds ratio)
^cLinear regression of pre-call group allocation on total number of reminders (linear regression coefficient, b). In the sensitivity analysis that includes only those who required an email reminder (i.e., excluded those who responded before a reminder was due and those who opted to complete the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) over the phone before being sent a questionnaire), there was one participant who required an email reminder, but it was not sent due to administrative error
^dCox regression of pre-call group allocation on time to complete the questionnaire in days since the questionnaire was sent to the participant (hazard ratio). Zero values are not permitted in the time-to-event analysis, and so 0.5 days were allocated for participants who completed the questionnaire the day it was sent to them, while 91 days were allocated to the 18 participants that did not complete the questionnaire. For median: control n = 109 (sensitivity n = 54); urgent email n = 104 (sensitivity n = 69)

Back to article page

ISSN: 1745-6215

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com