• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

临床试验中对邮寄问卷调查随访的应答与无应答——基于患者视角的定性研究

Response and non-response to postal questionnaire follow-up in a clinical trial--a qualitative study of the patient's perspective.

作者信息

Nakash Rachel A, Hutton Jane L, Lamb Sarah E, Gates Simon, Fisher Joanne

机构信息

Warwick Emergency Care adn Rehabilitation, University of Warwick, UK.

出版信息

J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Apr;14(2):226-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x. Epub 2007 Dec 13.

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x
PMID:18093103
Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Many studies have investigated response issues to postal questionnaires in educational and market research surveys. Behavioural theories have been applied to survey research to understand response decisions. Little attention has focussed specifically on response issues to postal questionnaires used to collect data in clinical trials. This qualitative study, nested within an acute injury RCT, examines factors affecting response and non-response from the clinical trial participant's perspective.

METHODS

Qualitative study comprising of 22 semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of clinical trial participants. The sample consisted of 14 'responders' and 8 'non-responders' to postal questionnaire follow-up. Data were analysed using the Framework Method.

RESULTS

Prevalent reasons for responding to the questionnaires were the perceived personal benefit, commitment to the trial and perceived obligation to respond. Altruism was also a strong motivator. There was an association between the participant's understanding of the trial and their likelihood of responding. Most non-responders were happy with the trial and gave reasons for non-response such as being 'lazy' and 'forgetful'. Participants who considered themselves to be fully recovered were less likely to respond. There also emerged a relationship between response and treatment preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Saliency of the questionnaire topic is one of the most prevalent influences on response in clinical trials. This is not evident in the survey literature. Improvements in response rates may be gained by ensuring participants fully understand the trial procedures and stressing the importance of responding even if a full recovery has been made.

摘要

原理、目的与目标:许多研究探讨了教育和市场研究调查中对邮寄问卷的回应问题。行为理论已应用于调查研究以理解回应决策。但很少有研究专门关注用于临床试验数据收集的邮寄问卷的回应问题。这项嵌套在急性损伤随机对照试验中的定性研究,从临床试验参与者的角度考察影响回应和不回应的因素。

方法

定性研究,对临床试验参与者的有目的样本进行22次半结构化访谈。样本包括对邮寄问卷随访的14名“回应者”和8名“不回应者”。数据采用框架法进行分析。

结果

回应问卷的普遍原因是感知到的个人利益、对试验的承诺以及感知到的回应义务。利他主义也是一个强大的动机。参与者对试验的理解与他们回应的可能性之间存在关联。大多数不回应者对试验满意,并给出了不回应的原因,如“懒惰”和“健忘”。认为自己已完全康复的参与者回应的可能性较小。回应与治疗偏好之间也出现了一种关系。

结论

问卷主题的显著性是对临床试验回应最普遍的影响因素之一。这在调查文献中并不明显。通过确保参与者充分理解试验程序并强调即使已完全康复也要回应的重要性,可能会提高回应率。

相似文献

1
Response and non-response to postal questionnaire follow-up in a clinical trial--a qualitative study of the patient's perspective.临床试验中对邮寄问卷调查随访的应答与无应答——基于患者视角的定性研究
J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Apr;14(2):226-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x. Epub 2007 Dec 13.
2
'So much post, so busy with practice--so, no time!': a telephone survey of general practitioners' reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys.“邮件太多,忙于临床工作——所以,没时间!”:一项关于全科医生不参与邮寄问卷调查原因的电话调查
Br J Gen Pract. 1998 Mar;48(428):1067-9.
3
Postal surveys of physicians gave superior response rates over telephone interviews in a randomized trial.在一项随机试验中,对医生进行邮政调查的回复率高于电话访谈。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 May;59(5):521-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.009. Epub 2006 Mar 15.
4
[Mail questionnaires. A useful strategy for the follow-up of patients with a cerebrovascular stroke?].[邮寄问卷调查。对脑血管卒中患者进行随访的有效策略?]
Acta Med Port. 1997 Jan;10(1):61-5.
5
Interviews or postal questionnaires? Comparisons of data about women's experiences with maternity services.访谈还是邮寄问卷调查?关于女性产科服务体验的数据比较。
Milbank Q. 1988;66(1):172-89.
6
Factors determining participation in prevention trials among systemic lupus erythematosus patients: a qualitative study.系统性红斑狼疮患者参与预防试验的决定因素:一项定性研究。
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Feb 15;57(1):49-55. doi: 10.1002/art.22480.
7
Personal benefit, or benefiting others? Deciding whether to take part in clinical trials.个人获益还是造福他人?决定是否参与临床试验。
Clin Trials. 2011 Feb;8(1):85-93. doi: 10.1177/1740774510392257. Epub 2010 Dec 16.
8
No increase in response rate by adding a web response option to a postal population survey: a randomized trial.在邮政人口调查中增加网络回复选项不会提高回复率:一项随机试验。
J Med Internet Res. 2007 Dec 31;9(5):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.5.e40.
9
The perspective of patients with vascular disease on participation in clinical trials.血管疾病患者对参与临床试验的看法。
J Vasc Nurs. 1994 Dec;12(4):112-6.
10
Use of an online questionnaire for follow-up of young female students recruited to a randomised controlled trial of chlamydia screening.使用在线问卷对招募到衣原体筛查随机对照试验的年轻女学生进行随访。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Jul;64(7):580-4. doi: 10.1136/jech.2009.098830.

引用本文的文献

1
How can we support research participants who stop taking part? Communications guidance developed through public-researcher collaboration.我们如何支持那些停止参与研究的参与者?通过公众与研究者合作制定的沟通指南。
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Apr 18;10(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00572-4.
2
Developing an online, searchable database to systematically map and organise current literature on retention research (ORRCA2).开发一个在线的、可搜索的数据库,以系统地绘制和组织目前关于保留研究的文献(ORRCA2)。
Clin Trials. 2022 Feb;19(1):71-80. doi: 10.1177/17407745211053803. Epub 2021 Oct 24.
3
Exploring non-retention in clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out.
探索临床试验中的失访问题:一项综合报告参与者退出原因的元人种学研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 3;9(6):e021959. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021959.
4
Predictive values of colorectal cancer alarm symptoms in the general population: a nationwide cohort study.一般人群中结直肠癌报警症状的预测价值:一项全国性队列研究。
Br J Cancer. 2019 Mar;120(6):595-600. doi: 10.1038/s41416-019-0385-x. Epub 2019 Feb 22.
5
Systematic Techniques to Enhance rEtention in Randomised controlled trials: the STEER study protocol.提高随机对照试验中保留率的系统技术:STEER研究方案
Trials. 2018 Mar 27;19(1):197. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2572-0.
6
Engagement and communication among participants in the ClinSeq Genomic Sequencing Study.ClinSeq基因组测序研究中参与者之间的参与和沟通。
Genet Med. 2017 Jan;19(1):98-103. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.71. Epub 2016 Oct 20.
7
Optimising the validity and completion of adherence diaries: a multiple case study and randomised crossover trial.优化依从性日记的有效性与完成率:一项多案例研究及随机交叉试验
Trials. 2016 Oct 10;17(1):489. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1615-7.
8
Lifestyle factors and contact to general practice with respiratory alarm symptoms-a population-based study.生活方式因素与因呼吸道警报症状就医——一项基于人群的研究。
BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Apr 21;17:47. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0444-9.
9
Maximising follow-up participation rates in a large scale 45 and Up Study in Australia.在澳大利亚一项针对45岁及以上人群的大规模研究中,最大化随访参与率。
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2016 Apr 14;13:6. doi: 10.1186/s12982-016-0046-y. eCollection 2016.
10
Lifestyle factors and experience of respiratory alarm symptoms in the general population.生活方式因素与普通人群呼吸报警症状的体验。
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2015 Sep 30;2(1):e000101. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2015-000101. eCollection 2015.