ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03021863ResponseQTUpdated Mar 22, 2021

How Frequently and in What Format Are Research Trial Results Disseminated to Participants (ResponseQT)

An interventional study of Group A Reminder and Group B Reminder in Motivation, sponsored by ThinkWell. Completed at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-03-22.

Sponsored by ThinkWell · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,198
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Questionnaires are frequently used in online research, however recruiting, and completion rates of online participants from a variety of cultures and demographic backgrounds can be challenging. The challenge is greater in an online cohort because there is no way to observe the participant beyond what is contributed online. Poor recruiting and completion can result in underpowered research that may not be representative of the sample population. This can trigger an increase in costs as the recruitment period may have to be extended until sample size is reached. When recruiting and completion rates are inadequate studies may have to be terminated and the answer to the research question can remain unknown.

To mitigate these challenges, reminder emails are sent to questionnaire respondents. There is uncertainty about how the tone of the email reminder affects the proportion of recruitment rates.

A nested randomized trial will be used to test the intervention of tone delivery in survey email reminders to establish an evidence base. This study (ResponseQT) proposes to link with the anticipated 20,000 person international cohort study, (How Frequently and in What Format are Research Trial Results Disseminated to Participants: A Survey of Trialists (ResponseQT) to explore the evidence of effect for the research question, "Does the tone of a survey email reminder affect the proportion of survey participants recruited. The population will consist of researchers who have published a clinical trial indexed in Pub Med in 2014-15.The intervention is the tone of questionnaire email reminders and the outcomes will be the proportion of participants recruited after invitation (partial plus complete responses) following reminder 1 and 2.

Read the detailed description

RATIONALE

Dissemination is the planned process by which results of studies are communicated to the stakeholders of that research. Stakeholders can include health policy makers, academics, practicing clinicians and other health service workers, patients, the general public, and research funders. There are multiple ways to disseminate research findings and it is often considered a shared responsibility between funders and research investigators. Traditionally, the focus has targeted healthcare professionals, policy makers, and academics through journal publications and conference presentations. However, optimal knowledge translation depends on disseminating results to all stakeholders in a way that enables them to consider the implications of the results.

Effective communication and active dissemination of research results to patients and the lay public is essential for making informed decisions and choices, but it is sometimes considered as an afterthought. Furthermore, there is no consensus on what dissemination to patients or members of the lay public means, what is the most effective dissemination process and whether research results should be disseminated to relevant patient groups and the wider public as well as the patients who took part in the studies.

Only clinical trials indexed in PubMed 2014-15 where participants were enrolled into the study will be included. We will include screening questions at the start of the survey to exclude authors of non-randomised controlled trials, preclinical, and first-in-human trials and trials where there were no study participants.

AIM

To identify frequency and format of dissemination of clinical trial results to participants and to identify barriers to dissemination.

OBJECTIVES

  1. To identify frequency of dissemination of recently published clinical trial results to participants;
  2. To explore the format of results disseminated to participants and describe researchers' perceived appropriateness and accessibility of the format;
  3. To identify how frequently research results are disseminated to patients beyond those taking part in the trials such as via advocacy groups;
  4. To explore the frequency of public/patient involvement for determining the format, content, and extent of the dissemination plans;
  5. To determine researchers' perceived confidence in disseminating results to participants and other patients.

This research will contain a study within a study (SWAT) also known as a nested trial (ResponseQT).

SWAT RATIONALE

Written communication in questionnaire email reminders are without verbal or sensory cues and it is difficult to modify reminders without feedback from respondents. It would be helpful to know what kind of tone the researcher can take to increase recruitment rates.

In questionnaires, the tone could be perceived as the perception of the researcher's attitude toward the reader and the subject of the message. The overall tone of a questionnaire reminder message may affect the reader just as one's tone of voice affects the listener in a verbal exchange. This could influence response and completion rates. Added to the complexity, tone can be interpreted differently by different individuals. Survey communications about reminders suggest two approaches appealing to a team victory with a sense of duty and benefit for others by participating or by building a sense of encouragement for participation. In addition, we will test whether introducing duty or encouragement in the second reminder (after a generic first reminder) makes a difference and whether someone who was exposed to duty or encouragement in the first reminder benefits from the reinforcement of a "nudge" from a generic reminder.

METHODS

This research involves exploring ways to increase recruitment rates through reminder emails that will be sent to those who were invited but have not yet responded to the questionnaire. A reminder will be sent to all non-respondents by email 14 days following the initial mailing. An additional reminder will be sent to all non-respondents by email 28 days following the first reminder. The nested trial (ResponseQT) will examine the evidence of effect for tone used within the questionnaire reminder emails. The group to which a participant is randomized will determine the tone of the questionnaire reminder emails.

All potential respondents will be randomized to one of nine groups. They will receive the same questionnaire invitation email. Reminders for non-responders be assigned according to the group they were randomized to:

Group A Tone = Duty x 2

Group B Tone = Encourage x 2

Group C Tone = Encourage + Duty

Group D Tone = Duty + encourage

Group E Tone = Generic tone reminders X 2

Group F Tone = Generic + Duty

Group G Tone = Generic + Encouragement

Group H Tone = Duty + Generic

Group I Tone = Encouragement + Generic

All non-responders will receive a reminder to complete the questionnaire at fourteen days according to the group they are randomized to. At twenty-eight days remaining non-responders will receive the second reminder email.

The outcomes of recruitment will be compared at three stages: initial response, following the first reminder and following the second reminder.

02

Conditions studied

  • Motivation

Keywords

  • Dissemination
  • Tone
  • Survey reminders
  • Questionnaires
03

In context

Lead sponsor

ThinkWell is the lead sponsor of 9 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • reports of clinical trials with human participants indexed in PubMed 2014-15

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • reports of laboratory or animal studies,
  • reports of preclinical trials,
  • reports of trials where there were no study participants
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
1,198 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Group A Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group A Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group B Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group B Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group C Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group C Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group D Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group D Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group E Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (generic reminders at 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group E Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group F Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group F Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group G Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group G Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group H Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group H Reminder

  • Active comparator
    Group I Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days)

    Behavioral: Group I Reminder

Interventions

  • BehavioralGroup A Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by duty 28 days for non-responders)

  • BehavioralGroup B Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by encouragement 28 days for non-responders)

  • BehavioralGroup C Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days)

  • BehavioralGroup D Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (duty 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days)

  • BehavioralGroup E Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (generic reminders 14 days followed by 28 days for non-responders)

  • BehavioralGroup F Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by duty for non-responders 28 days)

  • BehavioralGroup G Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (generic 14 days followed by encouragement for non-responders 28 days)

  • BehavioralGroup H Reminder

    Tone of reminder email ( duty14 days followed by generic for non-responders 28 days)

  • BehavioralGroup I Reminder

    Tone of reminder email (encouragement 14 days followed by generic non-responders 28 days)

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Recruitment

    Proportion of sample recruited

    Time frame: Duration of study up to 60 days

07

Study locations

1 site
  • ThinkWell
    Oxford, Oxfordshire OX4 4DN, United Kingdom
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci. 2010 Nov 22;5:91. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-91. PubMed 21092164 ↗
  • Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Legare F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM. Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008 Mar;86(1):125-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00515.x. PubMed 18307479 ↗
  • Felix LM, Burchett HE, Edwards PJ. Factorial trial found mixed evidence of effects of pre-notification and pleading on response to Web-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 May;64(5):531-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.06.001. Epub 2010 Sep 17. PubMed 20850270 ↗
  • Fang J, Shao P, Lan G. Effects of innovativeness and trust on web survey participation. Comput Human Behav 2009;25:144-52. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.002
  • Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput Human Behav 2010;26:132-9. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015
  • Cook DA, Wittich CM, Daniels WL, West CP, Harris AM, Beebe TJ. Incentive and Reminder Strategies to Improve Response Rate for Internet-Based Physician Surveys: A Randomized Experiment. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 16;18(9):e244. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6318. PubMed 27637296 ↗
  • Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relations 2008;61:1139-60. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — De-Identified, aggregated data upon request to investigators due to data protection laws

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 22, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03021863
Lead sponsor
ThinkWell
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jan 16, 2017
Start date
Jan 15, 2017
Primary completion
Jun 30, 2018
Completion
Sep 30, 2019
Last update
Mar 22, 2021

Study contacts

Amy I Price, PhD
principal investigator · ThinkWell

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion