scholarly journals Effectiveness of SMS messaging for diarrhoea measurement: a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Trevor Titus Rego ◽  
Samuel Watson ◽  
Philbert Ishengoma ◽  
Philemon Langat ◽  
Hezekiah Pireh Otieno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Lower Response ◽  
Lower Response Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Text messaging systems are used to collect data on symptom prevalence. Using a text messaging system, we evaluated the effects of question load, question frequency, and financial incentive on response rates and reported infant diarrhoea rates in an infant diarrhoea survey. Methods We performed a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial of an SMS surveying system for infant diarrhoea surveillance with treatments: financial incentive (yes/no), question load (1-question/3-question), and questioning frequency (daily/fortnightly). Participants progressed through all treatment combinations over eight two-week rounds. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regressions to determine the impacts of the treatments on the response rates and reported diarrhoea rates. Attitudes were explored through qualitative interviews.Results For the 141 participants, the mean response rate was 47%. In terms of percentage point differences (ppd), daily questioning was associated with a lower response rate than fortnightly (-1·2[95%CI:-4·9,2·5]); high (3-question) question loads were associated with a lower response rate than low (1-question) question loads (-7·0[95%CI:-10·8,-3·1]); and financial incentivisation was associated with a higher response rate than no financial incentivisation (6·4[95%CI:2·6,10·2]). The mean two-week diarrhoea rate was 36·4%. Daily questioning was associated with a higher reported diarrhoea rate than fortnightly (29·9[95%CI:22·8,36·9]); with little evidence for impact by incentivisation or question load. Conclusions Close to half of all participants responded to the SMS survey. Daily questioning evoked a statistically higher rate of reported diarrhoea, while financial incentivisation and low (1-question) question loads evoked higher response rates than no incentive and high (3-question) question loads respectively.Trial RegistrationThe protocol was registered on ISRCTN on the 20th of March 2019 under number ISRCTN11410773.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of SMS messaging for diarrhoea measurement: a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Trevor Titus Rego ◽  
Samuel Watson ◽  
Philbert Ishengoma ◽  
Philemon Langat ◽  
Hezekiah Pireh Otieno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Lower Response ◽  
Lower Response Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Text messaging systems are used to collect data on symptom prevalence. Using a text messaging system, we evaluated the effects of question load, question frequency, and financial incentive on response rates and reported infant diarrhoea rates in an infant diarrhoea survey. Methods We performed a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial of an SMS surveying system for infant diarrhoea surveillance with treatments: financial incentive (yes/no), question load (1-question/3-question), and questioning frequency (daily/fortnightly). Participants progressed through all treatment combinations over eight two-week rounds. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regressions to determine the impacts of the treatments on the response rates and reported diarrhoea rates. Attitudes were explored through qualitative interviews. Results For the 141 participants, the mean response rate was 47%. In terms of percentage point differences (ppd), daily questioning was associated with a lower response rate than fortnightly (-1·2[95%CI:-4·9,2·5]); high (3-question) question loads were associated with a lower response rate than low (1-question) question loads (-7·0[95%CI:-10·8,-3·1]); and financial incentivisation was associated with a higher response rate than no financial incentivisation (6·4[95%CI:2·6,10·2]). The mean two-week diarrhoea rate was 36·4%. Daily questioning was associated with a higher reported diarrhoea rate than fortnightly (29·9[95%CI:22·8,36·9]); with little evidence for impact by incentivisation or question load. Conclusions Close to half of all participants responded to the SMS survey. Daily questioning evoked a statistically higher rate of reported diarrhoea, while financial incentivisation and low (1-question) question loads evoked higher response rates than no incentive and high (3-question) question loads respectively. Trial Registration The protocol was registered on ISRCTN on the 20 th of March 2019 under number ISRCTN11410773 .

scholarly journals Effectiveness of SMS messaging for diarrhoea measurement: a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Trevor Titus Rego ◽  
Samuel Watson ◽  
Philbert Ishengoma ◽  
Philemon Langat ◽  
Hezekiah Pireh Otieno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Lower Response ◽  
Lower Response Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract BackgroundText messaging systems are used to collect data on symptom prevalence. Using a text messaging system, we evaluated the effects of question load, question frequency, and financial incentive on response rates and reported infant diarrhoea rates in an infant diarrhoea survey.MethodsWe performed a factorial cross-over randomised controlled trial of an SMS surveying system for infant diarrhoea surveillance with treatments: financial incentive (yes/no), question load (1-question/3-question), and questioning frequency (daily/fortnightly). Participants progressed through all treatment combinations over eight two-week rounds. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regressions to determine the impacts of the treatments on the response rates and reported diarrhoea rates. Attitudes were explored through qualitative interviews.ResultsFor the 141 participants, the mean response rate was 47%. In terms of percentage point differences (ppd), daily questioning was associated with a lower response rate than fortnightly (-1·2[95%CI:-4·9,2·5]); high (3-question) question loads were associated with a lower response rate than low (1-question) question loads (-7·0[95%CI:-10·8,-3·1]); and financial incentivisation was associated with a higher response rate than no financial incentivisation (6·4[95%CI:2·6,10·2]).The mean two-week diarrhoea rate was 36·4%. Daily questioning was associated with a higher reported diarrhoea rate than fortnightly (29·9[95%CI:22·8,36·9]); with little evidence for impact by incentivisation or question load.ConclusionsClose to half of all participants responded to the SMS survey. Daily questioning evoked a statistically higher rate of reported diarrhoea, while financial incentivisation and low (1-question) question loads evoked higher response rates than no incentive and high (3-question) question loads respectively.Trial RegistrationThe protocol was registered on ISRCTN on the 20th of March 2019 under number ISRCTN11410773.

scholarly journals A Randomised Controlled Trial of Email Versus Mailed Invitation Letter In A National Longitudinal Survey of Physicians.

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Harrap ◽  
Tamara Taylor ◽  
Grant Russell ◽  
Anthony Scott
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Longitudinal Survey ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lower Response ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background: Despite the low cost of using email to distribute surveys to medical practitioners, email invitations have been associated with lower response rates, potentially increasing response bias and reducing external validity. We examine if there is a difference in response rates from using email rather than a mailed invitation letter in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of qualified physicians. Methods: We use a parallel randomised controlled trial during the 11th annual wave of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey of doctors. Participants were from previous waves of MABEL and newly invited in Wave 11. The control group was invited using a mailed paper letter (including a paper survey plus instructions to complete online) and three mailed paper reminders. The intervention group was approached in the same way apart from the second reminder when they were approached by email only. The primary outcome is the response rate and the statistical analysis was blinded.Results: 18,247 doctors were randomly allocated to the control (9,125) or intervention group (9,127), with 9,108 and 9,107 included in the final analysis. Using intention to treat analysis, the response rate in the intervention group was 35.92% compared to 37.59% in the control group, a difference of -1.66 percentage points (95% CI: -3.06 to -0.26). The difference was larger for General Practitioners (-2.76 percentage points, 95% CI: -4.65 to -0.87) compared to other specialists (-0.47 percentage points, 95% CI: -2.53 to 1.60). For those who supplied an email address, the average treatment effect on the treated was higher at -2.63 percentage points (95% CI: -4.50 to -0.75) for all physicians, -3.17 percentage points (95% CI: -5.83 to -0.53) for General Practitioners, and -2.1 percentage points (95% CI: -4.75 to 0.56) for other specialists. Conclusions: For qualified physicians, using email to invite participants to complete a survey leads to lower response rates compared to a mailed letter. Lower response rates need to be traded off with the lower costs of using email rather than mailed letters.

scholarly journals Effect of a financial incentive (shopping point) on increasing the number of daily walking steps among community-dwelling adults in Japan: a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e037303
Author(s):  
Fumiya Tanji ◽  
Yasutake Tomata ◽  
Saho Abe ◽  
Sanae Matsuyama ◽  
Yumika Kotaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Intervention Period ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a financial incentive on the number of daily walking steps among community-dwelling adults in Japan.Study designTwo-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.Setting/participantsWe recruited physically inactive community-dwelling adults from Sendai city, Japan. Eligible participants were randomly allocated to an intervention or a wait list control group. Pedometers were used to assess the mean number of daily steps in three periods: baseline (weeks 1–3), intervention (weeks 4–6) and follow-up (weeks 7–9).InterventionThe intervention group was offered a financial incentive (shopping points) to meet the target number of increased daily steps in the intervention period.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was an increase in the mean number of daily steps in the intervention and follow-up periods compared with baseline.ResultsSeventy-two participants (69.4% women; mean age, 61.2±16.2 years; mean number of daily steps at baseline, 6364±2804) were randomised to the intervention (n=36) and control groups (n=36). During the intervention period, the increase in mean daily steps was significantly higher in the intervention group (1650, 95% CI=1182 to 2119) than in the control group (514, 95% CI=136 to 891; p<0.001). However, the difference between groups was not significant at follow-up after the incentives were removed (p=0.311). In addition, compared with controls, a significantly higher proportion of participants in the intervention group showed an increase in mean daily steps of ≥1000 (69.4% vs 30.6%, respectively; OR=5.17, 95% CI=1.89 to 14.08). There were no adverse effects from the intervention.ConclusionsThe present results suggest that financial incentives are effective in promoting short-term increases in physical activity.Trial registration numberUMIN000033276.

scholarly journals Effects of active referral combined with a small financial incentive on smoking cessation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038351
Author(s):  
Xue Weng ◽  
Man Ping Wang ◽  
Ho Cheung William Li ◽  
Yee Tak Derek Cheung ◽  
Ching Yin Lau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Smoking Cessation Services ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionEvidence-based smoking cessation treatments are effective but underutilised, accentuating the need for novel approaches to increase use. This trial investigates the effects of active referral combined with a financial incentive to use smoking cessation services on smoking abstinence among community smokers.Methods and analysisThis ongoing study is a two-arm, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with follow‐ups at 1, 2, 3 and 6 months after randomisation. We aim to enrol 1134 daily smokers from 70 community sites (clusters) in Hong Kong. All participants receive Ask, Warn, Advise, Refer, Do-it-again (AWARD) guided advice and a self-help booklet at baseline. Additionally, participants in the intervention group receive an offer of referral to smoking cessation services at baseline and a small financial incentive (HK$300≈US$38) contingent on using any of such services within 3 months. The primary outcomes are bioverified abstinence (exhaled carbon monoxide <4 ppm and salivary cotinine <10 ng/mL) at 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported 7-day point prevalence of abstinence, smoking reduction rate, quit attempts and the use of smoking cessation services at 3 and 6 months. Intention-to-treat approach and regression models will be used in primary analyses.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (IRB reference number: UW 18-318). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and the key findings will be presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT03565796.

scholarly journals Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) trial: a three-armed randomised controlled trial of financial incentives

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaby Judah ◽  
Ara Darzi ◽  
Ivo Vlaev ◽  
Laura Gunn ◽  
Derek King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Fixed Group ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Screening Attendance ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThe UK national diabetic eye screening (DES) programme invites diabetic patients aged > 12 years annually. Simple and cost-effective methods are needed to increase screening uptake. This trial tests the impact on uptake of two financial incentive schemes, based on behavioural economic principles.ObjectivesTo test whether or not financial incentives encourage screening attendance. Secondarily to understand if the type of financial incentive scheme used affects screening uptake or attracts patients with a different sociodemographic status to regular attenders. If financial incentives were found to improve attendance, then a final objective was to test cost-effectiveness.DesignThree-armed randomised controlled trial.SettingDES clinic within St Mary’s Hospital, London, covering patients from the areas of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 16 years, who had not attended their DES appointment for ≥ 2 years.Interventions(1) Fixed incentive – invitation letter and £10 for attending screening; (2) probabilistic (lottery) incentive – invitation letter and 1% chance of winning £1000 for attending screening; and (3) control – invitation letter only.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was screening attendance. Rates for control versus fixed and lottery incentive groups were compared using relative risk (RR) and risk difference with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 1274 patients were eligible and randomised; 223 patients became ineligible before invite and 1051 participants were invited (control,n = 435; fixed group,n = 312; lottery group,n = 304). Thirty-four (7.8%, 95% CI 5.29% to 10.34%) control, 17 (5.5%, 95% CI 2.93% to 7.97%) fixed group and 10 (3.3%, 95% CI 1.28% to 5.29%) lottery group participants attended. Participants offered incentives were 44% less likely to attend screening than controls (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92). Examining incentive groups separately, the lottery group were 58% less likely to attend screening than controls (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.98). No significant differences were found between fixed incentive and control groups (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.39) or between fixed and lottery incentive groups (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.65 to 4.21). Subgroup analyses showed no significant associations between attendance and sociodemographic factors, including gender (female vs. male, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.03), age (≤ 65 years vs. > 65 years, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.08), deprivation [0–20 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) decile vs. 30–100 IMD decile, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83], years registered [mean difference (MD) –0.13, 95% CI –0.69 to 0.43], and distance from screening location (MD –0.18, 95% CI –0.65 to 0.29).LimitationsDespite verification, some address details may have been outdated, and high ethnic diversity may have resulted in language barriers for participants.ConclusionsThose receiving incentives were not more likely to attend a DES than those receiving a usual invitation letter in patients who are regular non-attenders. Both fixed and lottery incentives appeared to reduce attendance. Overall, there is no evidence to support the use of financial incentives to promote diabetic retinopathy screening. Testing interventions in context, even if they appear to be supported by theory, is important.Future workFuture research, specifically in this area, should focus on identifying barriers to screening and other non-financial methods to overcome them.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN14896403.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 5, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e017511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishma Patel ◽  
Rebecca J Beeken ◽  
Baptiste Leurent ◽  
Rumana Z Omar ◽  
Irwin Nazareth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTen Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.DesignAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial.Setting14 general practitioner practices in England.ParticipantsAll patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention.Outcomes measuresHealth service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation.ResultsOver a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of −£36 (95% CI −£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI −0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI −£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold.ConclusionsCosts and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations.Trial registration numberISRCTN16347068; Post-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document