TY - JOUR
T1 - Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders
T2 - a recruitment study within a trial
AU - Bracken, Karen
AU - Keech, Anthony
AU - Hague, Wendy
AU - Kirby, Adrienne
AU - Robledo, Kristy P.
AU - Allan, Carolyn
AU - Conway, Ann
AU - Daniel, Mark
AU - Gebski, Val
AU - Grossmann, Mathis
AU - Handelsman, David J.
AU - Inder, Warrick
AU - Jenkins, Alicia
AU - McLachlan, Robert
AU - Stuckey, Bronwyn
AU - Yeap, Bu B.
AU - Wittert, Gary
PY - 2019/8/1
Y1 - 2019/8/1
N2 - Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the response rates and costs of phone call vs. short message service (SMS) screening reminders to prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) participants. Study Design and Setting: This study was a randomized evaluation within a large Australian diabetes prevention RCT. Participants were men aged 50–74 years, overweight or obese, without a previous type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Those eligible on a prescreening questionnaire who did not attend a further screening assessment within 4 weeks were randomized to receive an SMS or phone call reminder (N = 709). The primary outcome was attendance for further screening assessment within 8 weeks of prescreening. Results: Attendance was 18% (62/354) in the SMS reminder group, and 23% (80/355) in the phone reminder group, with no statistically significant difference in response according to reminder type (relative risk = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96–1.73, P = 0.09). The lower confidence limits for response to SMS (95% CI: 14–22%) and phone reminders (95% CI: 18–27%) did not include the 8-week attendance rate before this evaluation, 12%. Phone reminders cost substantially more than SMS reminders (AU$6.21 vs. AU$0.53 per reminder). Conclusion: SMS reminders were as adequate a method as phone reminders to boost RCT screening uptake and were considerably more affordable.
AB - Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the response rates and costs of phone call vs. short message service (SMS) screening reminders to prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) participants. Study Design and Setting: This study was a randomized evaluation within a large Australian diabetes prevention RCT. Participants were men aged 50–74 years, overweight or obese, without a previous type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Those eligible on a prescreening questionnaire who did not attend a further screening assessment within 4 weeks were randomized to receive an SMS or phone call reminder (N = 709). The primary outcome was attendance for further screening assessment within 8 weeks of prescreening. Results: Attendance was 18% (62/354) in the SMS reminder group, and 23% (80/355) in the phone reminder group, with no statistically significant difference in response according to reminder type (relative risk = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96–1.73, P = 0.09). The lower confidence limits for response to SMS (95% CI: 14–22%) and phone reminders (95% CI: 18–27%) did not include the 8-week attendance rate before this evaluation, 12%. Phone reminders cost substantially more than SMS reminders (AU$6.21 vs. AU$0.53 per reminder). Conclusion: SMS reminders were as adequate a method as phone reminders to boost RCT screening uptake and were considerably more affordable.
KW - Participant recruitment
KW - Randomized controlled trials
KW - Recruitment strategies
KW - Study within a trial
KW - Telephone reminders
KW - Text message reminders
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065804557&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009
M3 - Article
C2 - 31051248
AN - SCOPUS:85065804557
VL - 112
SP - 45
EP - 52
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
SN - 0895-4356
ER -