Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20782
Title: Telephone Call Reminders Did Not Increase Screening Uptake More Than SMS Reminders: A Recruitment Study Within a Trial
Austin Authors: 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
Affiliation: School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Keogh Institute of Medical Research and University of Western Australia, Western Australia, Australia
Medical School, University of Western Australia, and Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Victoria, Australia
Anzac Research Institute and Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
University of Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Department of Medicine, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Princess Alexandra Hospital and University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
Issue Date: 30-Apr-2019
metadata.dc.date: 2019-08
Publication information: Journal of clinical epidemiology 2019; 112: 45-52
Abstract: To compare the response rates and costs of phone call versus short message service (SMS) screening reminders to prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) participants. A randomised 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 pre-screening questionnaire who did not attend a further screening assessment within four weeks were randomised to receive an SMS or phone call reminder (N=709). The primary outcome was attendance for further screening assessment within eight weeks of pre-screening. 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 (RR=1.29, 95% 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 eight-week attendance rate prior to this evaluation, 12%. Phone reminders cost substantially more than SMS reminders (AU$6.21 versus AU$0.53 per reminder). SMS reminders were as adequate a method as phone reminders to boost RCT screening uptake, and were considerably more affordable.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20782
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.009
ORCID: 0000-0001-8261-3457
PubMed URL: 31051248
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Participant recruitment
randomized controlled trials
recruitment strategies
study within a trial
telephone reminders
text message reminders
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

12
checked on Dec 6, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.