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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)45-52
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume112
Early online date30 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2019

Fingerprint

Text Messaging
Telephone
Randomized Controlled Trials
Confidence Intervals
Costs and Cost Analysis
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Cite this

Bracken, Karen ; Keech, Anthony ; Hague, Wendy ; Kirby, Adrienne ; Robledo, Kristy P. ; Allan, Carolyn ; Conway, Ann ; Daniel, Mark ; Gebski, Val ; Grossmann, Mathis ; Handelsman, David J. ; Inder, Warrick ; Jenkins, Alicia ; McLachlan, Robert ; Stuckey, Bronwyn ; Yeap, Bu B. ; Wittert, Gary. / Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders : a recruitment study within a trial. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019 ; Vol. 112. pp. 45-52.
@article{ba16014e9c264e98b03df5cbb6453e46,
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 = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009",
language = "English",
volume = "112",
pages = "45--52",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

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

Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders : a recruitment study within a trial. / Bracken, Karen; Keech, Anthony; Hague, Wendy; Kirby, Adrienne; Robledo, Kristy P.; Allan, Carolyn; Conway, Ann; Daniel, Mark; Gebski, Val; Grossmann, Mathis; Handelsman, David J.; Inder, Warrick; Jenkins, Alicia; McLachlan, Robert; Stuckey, Bronwyn; Yeap, Bu B.; Wittert, Gary.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 112, 01.08.2019, p. 45-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/telephone-call-reminders-not-increase-screening-uptake-more-sms-reminders-recruitment-study-within-t

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009

M3 - Article

VL - 112

SP - 45

EP - 52

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

ER -