A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Kate Tilling²  Lynn Molloy¹  John Macleod²  Kirsty Burston³  Rachel Williams³  Ross Robinson¹  Joanne Malcolm¹  Pei Hayes⁴  Lindsey Brown⁴  Andy Boyd¹  Sian Noble²  Isabelle Bray⁵ 

[1]ALSPAC, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK

[2]School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK

[3]Ipsos MORI, 79-81 Borough Road, London SE1 1FY, UK

[4]The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

[5]Department of Health and Social Science, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK

关键词: Cost-effectiveness;    Acceptability;    Cohort study;    Participation;    Tracking;    Tracing;    Consent;    Opt-out;    Opt-in;   

Others  :  1221110
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y

 received in 2014-12-19, accepted in 2015-06-03,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Attrition is an important problem in cohort studies. Tracing cohort members who have moved or otherwise lost contact with the study is vital. There is some debate about the acceptability and relative effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out methods of contacting cohort members to re-engage them in this context. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the two approaches in terms of effectiveness (tracing to confirm address and consenting to continue in the study), cost-effectiveness and acceptability.

Methods

Participants in this trial were individuals (young people and mothers) recruited to the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), who had not engaged with the study in the previous 5 years and for whom mail had been returned from their last known address. The sampling frame was restricted to those for whom database searching led to a potential new address being found in the Bristol area. 300 participants were randomly selected and assigned using stratified randomisation to the opt-in or opt-out arm. A tailored letter was sent to the potential new address, either asking participants to opt in to a home visit, or giving them the option to opt out of a home visit. Fieldworkers from Ipsos MORI conducted home visits to confirm address details.

Results

The proportion who were traced was higher in the opt-out arm (77/150 = 51 %) than the opt-in arm (6/150 = 4 %), as was the proportion who consented to continue in ALSPAC (46/150 = 31 % v 4/150 = 3 %). The mean cost per participant was £8.14 in the opt-in arm and £71.93 in the opt-out arm. There was no evidence of a difference in acceptability between the opt-in and opt-out approaches.

Conclusion

Since the opt-in approach yielded very low response rates, and there were no differences in terms of acceptability, we conclude that the opt-out approach is the most effective method of tracing disengaged study members. The gains made in contacting participants must be weighed against the increase in cost using this methodology.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Bray et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Pirus C, Leridon H. Large cohort studies across the world. Population-E. 2010; 65:575-630.
• [2]Ketende SC, McDonald J, Dex S. Non-response in the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70) from birth to 34 years. 2010.
• [3]Boyd A, Golding J, Macleod J, Lawlor D, Fraser A, Henderson J et al.. Cohort Profile: the ‘children of the 90s’ - the index offspring of the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. Int J Epidemiology. 2013; 42:111-27.
• [4]Fraser A, Macdonald-Wallis C, Tilling K, Boyd A, Golding J, Ness A et al.. Cohort profile: the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children: ALSPAC mothers cohort. Int J Epidemiology. 2013; 42:97-110.
• [5]Goncalves H, Assuncao MCF, Wehrmeister FC, Oliveira IO, Barros FC, Victora CG et al.. Cohort profile update: The 1993 Pelotas (Brazil) birth cohort follow-up visits in adolescence. Int J Epidemiology. 2014; 43:1082-8.
• [6]Connelly R, Platt L. Cohort profile: UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). Int J Epidemiology. 2014; 43:1719-25.
• [7]Winding TN, Andersen JH, Labriola M, Nohr EA. Initial non-participation and loss to follow-up in a Danish youth cohort: implications for relative risk estimates. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014; 68:137-44.
• [8]Johnson S, Seaton SE, Manktelow BN, Smith LK, Field D, Draper ES et al.. Telephone interviews and online questionnaires can be used to improve neurodevelopmental follow-up rates. BMC Res Notes. 2014; 7:219. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Bracken MB, Baker D, Cauley JA, Chambers C, Culhane J, Dabelea D et al.. New models for large prospective studies: is there a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Am J Epidemiology. 2013; 177:285-9.
• [10]Howe LD, Galobardes B, Tilling K, Lawlor DA. Does drop-out from cohort studies bias estimates of socio-economic inequalities in health? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011; 65 Suppl 1:A31.
• [11]Howe LD, Tilling K, Galobardes B, Lawlor DA. Loss to follow-up in cohort studies: bias in estimates of socio-economic inequalities. Epidemiology. 2013; 24:1-9.
• [12]Kramer MS, Wilkins R, Goulet L, Séguin L, Lydon J, Kahn SR et al.. Montreal prematurity study group: Investigating socio-economic disparities in preterm birth: evidence for selective study participation and selection bias. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009; 23:301-9.
• [13]Nohr EA, Olsen J. Commentary: Epidemiologists have debated representativeness for more than 40 years—has the time come to move on? Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42:1016-7.
• [14]Lepkowski JM, Couper MP. Nonresponse in longitudinal household surveys. In: Survey Nonresponse. Groves RM, Dillman D, Eltinge J, Little R, editors. Wiley, New York; 2001: p.259-72.
• [15]Ribisl KM, Walton MA, Mowbray CT, Luke DA, Davidson WS, Bootsmiller BJ. J:Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: review and recommendations. Eval Program Plann. 1996; 19:1-25.
• [16]Hunt JR, White E. Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiol Rev. 1998; 20:57-70.
• [17]Calderwood L. The role of respondent characteristics in tracking on longitudinal surveys: evidence from the UK Millenium Cohort Study. Longitudinal and Life course Studies. 2013; 4:105-18.
• [18]Fumagalli L, Laurie H, Lynn P. Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys. J R Statist Soc A. 2013; 176:499-519.
• [19]McGonagle KA, Schoeni RF, Couper MP, Mushtaq M. An incentive experiment designed to increase response to a between-wave contact update mailing in two panel studies. Surv Pract. 2011;4.
• [20]McGonagle KA, Schoeni RF, Couper MP. The effects of a between-wave incentive experiment on contact update and production outcomes in a panel study. J Off Stat. 2013; 29:261-76.
• [21]Couper MP, Ofstedal MB. Keeping in contact with mobile sample members. In: Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys. Lynn P, editor. Wiley, Chichester (UK); 2009: p.183-203.
• [22]Dunn KM, Jordan K, Lacey RJ, Shapley M, Jinks C. Patterns of consent in epidemiologic research: Evidence from over 25,000 responders. AmJEpidemiol. 2004; 159:1087-94.
• [23]Hunt KJ, Shlomo N, Addington-Hall J. Participant recruitment in sensitive surveys: a comparison trial of ‘opt in’ versus ‘opt out’ approaches. BMC Med Res Method. 2013; 13:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Lacy K, Kremer P, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Allender S, Leslie E, Jones L et al.. The appropriateness of opt-out consent for monitoring childhood obesity in Australia. PediatrObes. 2012; 7:e62-7.
• [25]Treweek S, Mitchell E, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M et al.. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 4: Article ID MR000013
• [26]Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, Timmis A, Jones M. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies. BMJ. 2005;331:940.
• [27]ALSPAC Data Dictionary. http://www. bris.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/data-access/data-dictionary webcite
• [28]Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. StataCorp L, College Station, TX; 2011.
• [29]Calderwood L. Tracking sample members in longitudinal studies. Survey Practice. 2012;5.
• [30]Brown M, Calderwood L. Can encouraging respondents to contact interviewers to make appointments boost co-operation rates and save costs? Evidence from a randomised experiment in the UK. 2013.
• [31]Kaufman D, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Scott J. Preferences for opt-in and opt—out enrolment and consent models in biobank research: a national survey of Veterans Administration patients. Genet Med. 2012; 14:787-94.
• [32]Williams IL, O’Donnell CR. Web-based tracking methods in longitudinal studies. Eval Program Plann. 2014; 45:82-9.
• [33]Mychasiuk R, Benzies K. Facebook: an effective tool for participant retention in longitudinal research. Child Care Health Dev. 2012; 38:753-6.
• [34]Bolanas F, Herbeck D, Christou D, Lovinger K, Pham A, Raihan A et al.. Using Facebook to maximise follow-up response rates in a longitudinal study of adults who use methamphetamine. Subst Abuse Res Treat. 2012; 6:1-11.