↓ Skip to main content

Do personalised e-mail invitations increase the response rates of breast cancer survivors invited to participate in a web-based behaviour change intervention? A quasi-randomised 2-arm controlled trial

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Do personalised e-mail invitations increase the response rates of breast cancer survivors invited to participate in a web-based behaviour change intervention? A quasi-randomised 2-arm controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0063-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camille E. Short, Amanda L. Rebar, Corneel Vandelanotte

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the personalisation of study invitations improves response rates in survey-based research. To examine if this finding extends to experimental studies, we examined the impact of personalised study invitation e-mails on the response rates of potentially eligible breast cancer survivors for participation in a 6 month randomised controlled trial testing the efficacy of a physical activity intervention. Potential participants (n = 344) were sent either a personalised email or a generic email. Those sent the personalised email were 1.5 times (95 % CI = 1.18-1.93) more likely to respond than those sent the generic email. These findings suggest that personalisation may be a useful and potentially powerful tool that can be utilised when recruiting participants into experimental studies in order to boost response rates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 25%
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Sports and Recreations 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 9 19%

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 20 August 2015.
All research outputs
#5,845,318
of 8,071,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#641
of 823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,019
of 229,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,071,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 229,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.