Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

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

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Nakash, Rachel A., Hutton, Jane, Lamb, S. E. (Sallie E.), Gates, Simon and Fisher, Joanne D. (2008) Response and non-response to postal questionnaire follow-up in a clinical trial – a qualitative study of the patient’s perspective. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol.14 (No.2). pp. 226-235. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x ISSN 1356-1294.

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x

Request Changes to record.

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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Divisions: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Science > Statistics
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Clinical trials, Medical care surveys -- Response rate, Medical care -- Evaluation, Patient satisfaction, Qualitative research, Nonresponse (Statistics)
Journal or Publication Title: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1356-1294
Official Date: April 2008
Dates:
DateEvent
April 2008Published
Volume: Vol.14
Number: No.2
Number of Pages: 10
Page Range: pp. 226-235
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00838.x
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder: University of Warwick

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us