Reviewer Assistance: How Important Is the Invitation Letter?

2014 ◽  
Vol 203 (3) ◽  
pp. 467-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Berquist
Keyword(s):  
Invitation Letter

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.

Colon capsule versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with positive fecal occult blood test who refuse colonoscopy: a randomized trial

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (08) ◽  
pp. 761-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Pioche ◽  
Christell Ganne ◽  
Rodica Gincul ◽  
Antoine De Leusse ◽  
Julien Marsot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Blood Test ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood Test ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood ◽  
Occult Blood Test ◽  
Computed Tomography Colonography ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Fecal Occult

Abstract Objective Some patients (10 % – 32 %) with a positive guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in terms of participation rate and detection outcomes when offered to patients with a positive gFOBT who did not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. Methods An invitation letter offering CTC or VCE was sent to selected patients after randomization. Acceptance of the proposed (or alternative) procedure and procedure results were recorded. Sample size was evaluated according to the hypothesis of a 13 % increase of participation with VCE. Results A total of 756 patients were targeted. Following the invitation letter, 5.0 % (19/378) of patients underwent the proposed VCE and 7.4 % (28/378) underwent CTC, (P = 0.18). Following the letter, 9.8 % (37/378) of patients in the VCE group underwent a diagnostic procedure (19 VCE, 1 CTC, 17 colonoscopy) vs. 10.8 % in the CTC group (41/378: 28 CTC, 13 colonoscopy; P = 0.55). There were more potentially neoplastic lesions diagnosed in the VCE group than in the CTC group (12/20 [60.0 %] vs. 8/28 [28.6 %]; P = 0.04). Thus, 15/20 noninvasive procedures in the VCE group (19 VCE, 1 CTC; 75.0 %) vs. 10/28 in the CTC group (35.7 %; P = 0.01) resulted in a recommendation of further colonoscopy, but only 10/25 patients actually underwent this proposed colonoscopy. Conclusion Patients with a positive gFOBT result who do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy are difficult to recruit to the screening program and simply proposing an additional, less-invasive procedure, such as VCE or CTC, is not an effective strategy.

Two-by-two factorial randomised study within a trial to evaluate strategies for follow-up in a randomised prevention trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Alan A Montgomery ◽  
Hywel Williams ◽  
Joanne Chalmers ◽  
Rachel Haines
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Power ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Prevention Trial ◽  
Randomised Study ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Study Within A Trial ◽  
Sms Notification

Abstract Background Failure to collect outcome data in randomised trials can result in bias and loss of statistical power. Further evaluations of strategies to increase retention are required. We assessed the effectiveness of two strategies for retention in a randomised prevention trial using a two-by-two factorial randomised study within a trial (SWAT). Methods Parents of babies included in the host trial were randomised to (1) Short message service (SMS) notification prior to sending questionnaires at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months versus no SMS notification and (2) £10 voucher sent with the invitation letter for the primary follow up visit at 24 months or given at the visit. The two co-primary outcomes were collection of host trial (1) questionnaire data at interim follow-up times and (2) primary outcome at 24 months during a home/clinic visit with a research nurse. Results Between November 2014 and November 2016, 1394 participants were randomised: 350 to no SMS + voucher at visit, 345 to SMS + voucher at visit, 352 to no SMS + voucher before visit and 347 to SMS + voucher before visit. Overall 75% of questionnaires were completed in both the group allocated to the prior SMS notification and the group allocated to no SMS notification (odds ratio (OR) SMS v. none 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25). Host trial primary outcome data was collected at a visit for 557 (80%) allocated to the voucher before the visit in the invitation letter and for 566 (81%) whose parents were allocated to receive the voucher at the visit (OR before v. at visit 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17). Conclusion There was no evidence of a difference in retention according to SMS notification or voucher timing. Future synthesis of SWAT results is required to be able to detect small but important incremental effects of retention strategies. Trial registration: Host trial registration: ISRCTN registry; ID: ISRCTN21528841. Registered on 25 July 2014. SWAT Repository Store ID 25

scholarly journals Organised Versus Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening in Urban and Rural Regions of Lithuania

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (9) ◽  
pp. 570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justina Paulauskiene ◽  
Rugile Ivanauskiene ◽  
Erika Skrodeniene ◽  
Janina Petkeviciene
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Pap Smear ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Rural Regions ◽  
Reminder Letter ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Personal Invitation

Background and Objectives: In 2004, Lithuania started the Nationwide Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. However, screening is more opportunistic than population-wide and the programme’s coverage is insufficient. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of systematic personal invitation on coverage of cervical cancer (CC) screening in urban and rural regions of Lithuania. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in an urban primary healthcare centre (PHCC) and in a rural PHCC, where prevailing CC screening practice was highly opportunistic. Over the first year, all women aged 25–60 who had not received a Pap smear test within the last three years in urban (n = 1591) and rural (n = 1843) PHCCs received a personal invitation letter to participate in the screening. Over the second year, the reminder letter was sent to the non-attendees (n = 1042 in urban and n = 929 in rural PHCCs). A random sample of women (n = 93), who did not attend for screening after two letters, was contacted by phone in order to identify the barriers of non-attendance. Results: Before the study, only 9.6% of the target population in urban and 14.7% in rural PHCCs participated in CC screening. After the first invitation letter, the participation in CC screening increased up to 24.6% in urban and 30.8% in rural areas (p < 0.001). After the reminder letter, the attendance was 16.4% in urban and 22.2% in rural PHCCs (p < 0.001). The most common barriers for the non-attendance were lack of time, long waiting time for family doctor’s appointment, worries that a Pap test might be unpleasant and preventive gynaecological examination outside of the screening program. Conclusions: A systematic personal invitation with one reminder letter significantly increased the coverage of CC screening and was more effective in rural regions than in urban regions. The assessed barriers for non-attendance can be used to improve the coverage of screening.

Including the questionnaire with an invitation letter did not improve a telephone survey's response rate

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (12) ◽  
pp. 1312-1314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Byrne ◽  
James D. Harrison ◽  
Jane M. Young ◽  
Warwick S. Selby ◽  
Michael J. Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Invitation Letter

scholarly journals Two-by-two factorial randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate strategies for follow-up in a randomised prevention trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Alan A Montgomery ◽  
Hywel Williams ◽  
Joanne Chalmers ◽  
Rachel Haines
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Prevention Trial ◽  
Questionnaire Data ◽  
Randomised Study ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Study Within A Trial ◽  
Sms Notification

Abstract Background Failure to collect outcome data in randomised trials can result in bias and loss of statistical power. Further evaluations of strategies to increase retention are required. We assessed the effectiveness of two strategies for retention in a randomised prevention trial using a two-by-two factorial randomised study within a trial (SWAT). Methods Parents of babies included in the host trial were randomised to (1) Short message service (SMS) notification prior to sending questionnaires at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months versus no SMS notification and (2) £10 voucher sent with the invitation letter for the primary follow up visit at 24 months or given at the visit. The two co-primary outcomes were collection of host trial (1) questionnaire data at interim follow-up times and (2) primary outcome at 24 months during a home/clinic visit with a research nurse. Results Between November 2014 and November 2016, 1394 participants were randomised: 350 to no SMS + voucher at visit, 345 to SMS + voucher at visit, 352 to no SMS + voucher before visit and 347 to SMS + voucher before visit. Overall questionnaire data was collected at interim follow-up times for 75% in both the group allocated to the prior SMS notification and the group allocated to no SMS notification (odds ratio (OR) SMS v. none 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25). Host trial primary outcome data was collected at a visit for 557 (80%) allocated to the voucher before the visit in the invitation letter and for 566 (81%) whose parents were allocated to receive the voucher at the visit (OR before v. at visit 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17). Conclusion There was no evidence of a difference in retention according to SMS notification or voucher timing. Future synthesis of SWAT results is required to be able to detect small but important incremental effects of retention strategies. Trial registration: Host trial registration: ISRCTN registry; ID: ISRCTN21528841. Registered on 25 July 2014. SWAT Repository Store ID 25

scholarly journals Effects of different invitation strategies on participation in a cohort study of Iranian public sector employees: a cluster randomized trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rezvan Rajabzadeh ◽  
Leila Janani ◽  
Seyed Abbas Motevalian
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Public Sector Employees ◽  
Logistic Mixed Effects Model ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Abstract Background Identifying strategies to optimize participation in health studies is one of the major concerns for researchers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of different invitation strategies on participation rate in the Employees’ Health Cohort Study of Iran (EHCSIR). Methods Two cluster-randomized trials were carried out to assess the outcomes of different invitation strategies. In the first phase, 7 units with 1880 employees (3 hospitals, 3 health centers, and 1 office) were assigned to the three parallel modes of invitation: 1) invitation letter, 2) phone call and 3) Short Message Service (SMS). In the second phase, 6 hospitals with 1633 employees were allocated to two invitation methods: 1) invitation letter, 2) invitation letter plus EHCSIR project introduction video. All groups were followed up by phone calls. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to compare the effectiveness of the strategies. The cost-effectiveness of the interventions was also compared. Results In the first phase, the participation rates in the invitation letter, phone call, and SMS groups were 27.04% (182/673), 21.55% (131/608), and 22.54% (135/599), respectively. Using an invitation letter was significantly more successful than SMS (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 1.80, 95% CI =1.14 to 2.85). Average Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ACER) were $1.37, $1.42, and $1.55 for the invitation letter, phone call, and SMS, respectively. In the second phase, adding a project introduction video to the invitation letter did not significantly influence the participation rate (Adjusted OR = 0.58, 95% CI =0.24 to 1.36). The ACER was $1.21 for the invitation letter only and $2.01 for the invitation letter plus the introduction video. Conclusions In comparison with the phone call and SMS, the invitation letter is the most effective invitation method for public sector employees to participate in a cohort study. Sending an introduction video did not significantly increase the participation rate compared to sending an invitation letter only.

scholarly journals Does handwriting the name of a potential trial participant on an invitation letter improve recruitment rates? A randomised controlled study within a trial

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer McCaffery ◽  
Alex Mitchell ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Sara Rodgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intervention Group ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Trial Participant ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Within A Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often fail to recruit to target, resulting in a lack of generalisability of findings. A wide range of strategies for potentially increasing recruitment have been identified; however, their effectiveness has not been established. The aim of this study within a trial (SWAT) was to evaluate the effectiveness of handwritten personalisation of an invitation letter as part of a trial recruitment pack on recruitment to a host RCT. Methods: A pragmatic, two-armed RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing falls prevention trial (OTIS) in men and women aged 65 years and over living in the community. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive an OTIS recruitment pack containing an invitation letter on which their name was handwritten (intervention group), or one on which it was printed (control group). The primary outcome was randomisation into the host trial.  Secondary outcomes related to trial eligibility and retention.  Analyses were via logistic regression and Cox Proportional Hazards regression. Results: Of the 317 SWAT participants, 12 (3.8%) were randomised into the OTIS trial: 3 (handwritten: 3/159 [1.9%]; printed: 9/158 [5.7%]; difference -3.8%, 95% CI -8.0% to 0.4%). There was weak evidence, against the intervention, of a difference in the likelihood of participants being randomised into the host trial between the two groups (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.20, p=0.09). There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups on any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: There was no evidence that personalisation of invitation letters improved recruitment to the OTIS trial. However, due to the small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution. These findings need to be replicated across larger studies and wider populations. Registration: ISRCTN22202133.

scholarly journals Participation in faecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in the northwest of Europe

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther Toes-Zoutendijk ◽  
Isabel Portillo ◽  
Sarah Hoeck ◽  
Isabel de Brabander ◽  
Philippe Perrin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Basque Country ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Participation Rates ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Screening Participation

Objective This study compared the participation in four faecal immunochemical testing-based screening programmes for colorectal cancer in Flanders, France, Basque country and the Netherlands, to identify factors to further optimize faecal immunochemical testing programmes. Method Background information and data on performance indicators were collected and compared for the four programmes. Results Invitation method, reminders, funding, faecal immunochemical testing cut-off and follow-up after positive faecal immunochemical testing differed in the four programmes. In France, only an invitation letter is sent by mail, while the sample kit must be collected from the general practitioner. In the other programmes, an invitation letter including the sample kit is sent by mail. Participation rates vary substantially according to the method of invitation, with the highest participation rates in the Netherlands (73.0%) and Basque country (72.4%), followed by Flanders (54.5%) and France (28.6%). Basque country (92.8%) and France (88.4%), the two programmes with most active involvement of general practitioners in referral for colonoscopy, had the highest participation rates for colonoscopy. Conclusions Large differences in screening participation observed between programmes according to the invitation method used suggest that changes to the design of the programme, such as including the sample kit with the invitation, or active involvement of GPs, might increase participation.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (24) ◽  
pp. 5035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justina Paulauskiene ◽  
Mindaugas Stelemekas ◽  
Rugile Ivanauskiene ◽  
Janina Petkeviciene
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pap Smear ◽  
Reminder Letter ◽  
Pap Smear Test ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Appointment Time ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Personal Invitation ◽  
Postal Invitation

In Lithuania, cytological screening of cervical cancer (CC) is largely opportunistic. Absence of standardized systematic invitation practice might be the reason for low participation rates. The study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of systematic invitation approach in CC screening programme from the perspective of a healthcare provider. A decision tree was used to compare an opportunistic invitation by a family doctor, a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place, and a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place with one reminder letter. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per one additionally screened woman and per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected. The ICER of one personal postal invitation letter was €9.67 per one additionally screened woman and €55.21 per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected in comparison with the current screening practice. The ICER of a personal invitation letter with an additional reminder letter compared to one invitation letter was €13.47 and €86.88 respectively. Conclusions: A personal invitation letter approach is more effective in increasing the participation rate in CC screening and the number of detected abnormal Pap smears; however, it incurs additional expenses compared with current invitation practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document