Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Questionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment. Objectives Update the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study’s the risk of bias. Methods Inclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates. Study design: randomised controlled trails. Exclusion criteria: NA. Data sources: Studies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy. Data extraction: data was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results One hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20–1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99–1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results. Conclusions Using the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates. Funding Economic and Social Research Council. Preregistration None.

Feasibility of an Individualized mHealth Nutrition (iNutrition) Intervention for Post-Discharged Gastric Cancer Patients Following Gastrectomy: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

“…A high exclusion or refusal rate has been observed in other multicomponent mHealth interventions in cancer care [23,35]. In this study, the main reason for the low recruitment rate was that in order to establish a relationship of trust with the potential participants in order to improve the retention rate, the nutrition support team (NST) pre-contacted and screened the potential participants when they were admitted to the hospital [36]. Additionally, the majority of these potential participants were excluded in the process of diagnosis and treatment during hospital stays because of not meeting the inclusion criteria due to severe co-morbidity, inoperable, adjuvant treatment, and post-operative morbidity, for instance.…”