An Experimental Evaluation of Two Approaches for Improving Response to Household Screening Efforts in National Mail/Web Surveys.

Survey researchers have carefully modified their data collection operations for various reasons, including the rising costs of data collection and the ongoing Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, both of which have made in-person interviewing difficult. For large national surveys that require household (HH) screening to determine survey eligibility, cost-efficient screening methods that do not include in-person visits need additional evaluation and testing. A new study, known as the American Family Health Study (AFHS), recently initiated data collection with a national probability sample, using a sequential mixed-mode mail/web protocol for push-to-web US HH screening (targeting persons aged 18-49 years). To better understand optimal approaches for this type of national screening effort, we embedded two randomized experiments in the AFHS data collection. The first tested the use of bilingual respondent materials where mailed invitations to the screener were sent in both English and Spanish to 50 percent of addresses with a high predicted likelihood of having a Spanish speaker and 10 percent of all other addresses. We found that the bilingual approach did not increase the response rate of high-likelihood Spanish-speaking addresses, but consistent with prior work, it increased the proportion of eligible Hispanic respondents identified among completed screeners, especially among addresses predicted to have a high likelihood of having Spanish speakers. The second tested a form of nonresponse follow-up, where a subsample of active sampled HHs that had not yet responded to the screening invitations was sent a priority mailing with a $5 incentive, adding to the $2 incentive provided for all sampled HHs in the initial screening invitation. We found this approach to be quite valuable for increasing the screening survey response rate.

Recall of clinical trial participation and attrition rates in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

PURPOSE: To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS). MATERIALS/METHODS: In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall. RESULTS: Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.