Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, The University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Sep;64(9):1001-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.013. Epub 2011 Feb 2.
We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic reminders (ERs) to improve the response rates and time to response of postal questionnaires in a health research setting.
This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) was nested within a multicenter RCT of yoga for lower back pain. Participants who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile phone number were randomized to receive an ER or no reminder (controls) on the day they were due to receive a follow-up questionnaire.
One hundred twenty-five participants (32 males and 93 females) mean age 46 (standard deviation: 11, range: 20-65) were randomized to ER (n=62) or controls (n=63). Overall 85.6% of participants returned postal questionnaires (87.1% ER group and 84.1% from controls). No significant differences were found between the two groups for response rate (difference between groups=3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-10, 16; P=0.64) or time to response after adjusting for age, gender, and treatment allocation (χ(2) ([3df])=7.10; P=0.07).
In the present RCT, we found little evidence for the effectiveness of ERs to increase response rates or time to respond for the return of questionnaires in this study population group.
我们旨在评估电子提醒（ER）在改善邮政问卷调查的回复率和回复时间方面的效果，这是在健康研究环境下进行的。
这是一项实用随机对照试验（RCT），嵌套在一项针对下腰痛的瑜伽多中心 RCT 中。那些提供电子邮件地址和/或手机号码的参与者被随机分配在应收到随访问卷的当天接受 ER 或无提醒（对照组）。
共有 125 名参与者（32 名男性和 93 名女性），平均年龄为 46 岁（标准差：11，范围：20-65），被随机分配到 ER 组（n=62）或对照组（n=63）。总体上，85.6%的参与者寄回了邮政问卷（ER 组为 87.1%，对照组为 84.1%）。在调整年龄、性别和治疗分配后，两组之间的回复率（组间差异=3.0%，95%置信区间[CI]=-10，16；P=0.64）或回复时间差异均无统计学意义（卡方检验[3df]=7.10；P=0.07）。
在本 RCT 中，我们几乎没有发现 ER 能够有效提高本研究人群组的问卷回复率或回复时间。
