↓ Skip to main content

Improving participation rates by providing choice of participation mode: two randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving participation rates by providing choice of participation mode: two randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0021-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naomi Heijmans, Jan van Lieshout, Michel Wensing

Abstract

Low participation rates reduce effective sample size, statistical power and can increase risk for selection bias. Previous research suggests that offering choice of participation mode can improve participation rates. However, few head-to-head trials compared choice of participation mode using telephone interviews and postal questionnaires as modes of interest. Aiming to explore effects of choice of participation, two randomized controlled trials were performed comparing participation rates of patients provided with and without choice of participation mode, using interviews and questionnaires as participation modes. Two trials were embedded in a larger study on cardiovascular risk management in primary care. Patients with a chronic cardiovascular condition recruited for the larger study were invited to participate in an additional survey on social networks, using invitations with and without choice of participation mode. Primary outcome was participation rate. Other outcomes of interest were participation rate conditional on willingness to participate, and initial willingness to participate. In trial 1 we compared outcomes after choice of participation mode (interview or questionnaire) with invitations for participation in a telephone interview. In Trial 2 results for choice of participation mode were compared with postal questionnaires. In Trial 1 no differences were found in participation rates (65% vs 66%, p = 0.853) although conditional participation rate was highest for interviews (90% vs 72%, p < .01). Initial willingness to participate was higher when choice of participation mode was provided (90% versus 73%, p < .01). In Trial 2 participation rate and conditional participation rate was higher when choice of participation mode was provided (59% vs 46%, p < .01 and 66% vs 53%, p < .01, respectively). No differences were found for initial willingness to participate (90% vs 86%, p = 0.146). Offering choice of participation mode had benefit on participation rates compared to invitations to participate in questionnaires, but not when compared to invitations to participate in telephone interviews. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89237105 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Psychology 4 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2015.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,728
of 2,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,276
of 265,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.