Sebo Paul, Tudrej Benoit, Bernard Augustin, Delaunay Bruno, Dupuy Alexandra, Malavergne Claire, Maisonneuve Hubert
University Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
University College of General Medicine, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Interact J Med Res. 2025 Feb 25;14:e67981. doi: 10.2196/67981.
Participation and completion rates in questionnaire-based surveys are often low.
This study aims to assess participation and completion rates for a survey using paper and mixed mode questionnaires with patients recruited by research assistants in primary care waiting rooms.
This cluster-randomized study, conducted in 2023 in France, involved 974 patients from 39 practices randomized into 4 groups: "paper with incentive" (n=251), "paper without incentive" (n=368), "mixed mode with tablet" (n=187), and "mixed mode with QR code" (n=168). Analyses compared the combined paper group with the 2 mixed mode groups and the "paper with incentive" and "paper without incentive" groups. Logistic regressions were used to analyze participation and completion rates.
Of the 974 patients recruited, 822 (women: 536/821, 65.3%; median age 52, IQR 37-68 years) agreed to participate (participation rate=84.4%), with no significant differences between groups. Overall, 806 patients (98.1%) answered all 48 questions. Completion rates were highest in the combined paper group (99.8%) compared to mixed mode groups (96.8% for paper or tablet, 93.3% for paper or QR code; P<.001). There was no significant difference in completion rates between the "paper with incentive" and "paper without incentive" groups (100% vs 99.7%).
Recruiting patients in waiting rooms with research assistants resulted in high participation and completion rates across all groups. Mixed mode options did not enhance participation or completion rates but may offer logistical advantages. Future research should explore incentives and mixed-mode strategies in diverse settings.
基于问卷的调查的参与率和完成率通常较低。
本研究旨在评估一项使用纸质问卷和混合模式问卷的调查的参与率和完成率，该调查的对象是由研究助理在基层医疗候诊室招募的患者。
这项整群随机研究于2023年在法国进行，涉及来自39个医疗机构的974名患者，随机分为4组：“有激励措施的纸质问卷组”（n = 251）、“无激励措施的纸质问卷组”（n = 368）、“平板电脑混合模式组”（n = 187）和“二维码混合模式组”（n = 168）。分析比较了纸质问卷组合与两个混合模式组，以及“有激励措施的纸质问卷组”和“无激励措施的纸质问卷组”。使用逻辑回归分析参与率和完成率。
在招募的974名患者中，822名（女性：536/821，65.3%；年龄中位数52岁，四分位距37 - 68岁）同意参与（参与率 = 84.4%），组间无显著差异。总体而言，806名患者（98.1%）回答了所有48个问题。与混合模式组（纸质问卷或平板电脑为96.8%，纸质问卷或二维码为93.3%；P <.001）相比，纸质问卷组合的完成率最高（99.8%）。“有激励措施的纸质问卷组”和“无激励措施的纸质问卷组”的完成率无显著差异（100%对99.7%）。
由研究助理在候诊室招募患者导致所有组的参与率和完成率都很高。混合模式选项并未提高参与率或完成率，但可能具有后勤方面的优势。未来的研究应探索在不同环境下的激励措施和混合模式策略。
