Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial

Karen Bracken; Anthony Keech; Wendy Hague; Adrienne Kirby; Kristy P. Robledo; Carolyn Allan; Ann Conway; Mark Daniel; Val Gebski; Mathis Grossmann; David J. Handelsman; Warrick Inder; Alicia Jenkins; Robert McLachlan; Bronwyn Stuckey; Bu B. Yeap; Gary Wittert

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009

Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial

Karen Bracken, Anthony Keech, Wendy Hague, Adrienne Kirby, Kristy P. Robledo, Carolyn Allan, Ann Conway, Mark Daniel, Val Gebski, Mathis Grossmann, David J. Handelsman, Warrick Inder, Alicia Jenkins, Robert McLachlan, Bronwyn Stuckey, Bu B. Yeap, Gary Wittert

Internal Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	45-52
Number of pages	8
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	112
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009
Publication status	Published - 1 Aug 2019

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009

Cite this

Bracken, K., Keech, A., Hague, W., Kirby, A., Robledo, K. P., Allan, C., Conway, A., Daniel, M., Gebski, V., Grossmann, M., Handelsman, D. J., Inder, W., Jenkins, A., McLachlan, R., Stuckey, B., Yeap, B. B., & Wittert, G. (2019). Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 112, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009

@article{f091a2dbb61e4e9fb676d739d1c3b45c,

title = "Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Participant recruitment, Randomized controlled trials, Recruitment strategies, Study within a trial, Telephone reminders, Text message reminders",

author = "Karen Bracken and Anthony Keech and Wendy Hague and Adrienne Kirby and Robledo, {Kristy P.} and Carolyn Allan and Ann Conway and Mark Daniel and Val Gebski and Mathis Grossmann and Handelsman, {David J.} and Warrick Inder and Alicia Jenkins and Robert McLachlan and Bronwyn Stuckey and Yeap, {Bu B.} and Gary Wittert",

year = "2019",

month = aug,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009",

language = "English",

volume = "112",

pages = "45--52",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Pergamon",

}

Bracken, K, Keech, A, Hague, W, Kirby, A, Robledo, KP, Allan, C, Conway, A, Daniel, M, Gebski, V, Grossmann, M, Handelsman, DJ, Inder, W, Jenkins, A, McLachlan, R, Stuckey, B , Yeap, BB & Wittert, G 2019, 'Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 112, pp. 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009

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

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 112

SP - 45

EP - 52

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Testosterone Intervention for the Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus in High Risk Men - A Randomised Trial

Cite this

Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Projects

Testosterone Intervention for the Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus in High Risk Men - A Randomised Trial

Cite this