Questionnaires in clinical trials: guidelines for optimal design and administration

Trials

Phil Edwards¹ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Others  :  1096591
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-11-2

 received in 2009-07-29, accepted in 2010-01-11,  发布年份 2010

【 摘 要 】

A good questionnaire design for a clinical trial will minimise bias and maximise precision in the estimates of treatment effect within budget. Attempts to collect more data than will be analysed may risk reducing recruitment (reducing power) and increasing losses to follow-up (possibly introducing bias). The mode of administration can also impact on the cost, quality and completeness of data collected. There is good evidence for design features that improve data completeness but further research is required to evaluate strategies in clinical trials. Theory-based guidelines for style, appearance, and layout of self-administered questionnaires have been proposed but require evaluation.

【 授权许可】

   
2010 Edwards; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Armstrong BG: Optimizing power in allocating resources to exposure assessment in an epidemiologic study. Am J Epidemiol 1996, 144:192-197.
• [2]Hill AB: Observation and experiment. N Engl J Med 1953, 248:995-1001.
• [3]Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 3:MR000008.
• [4]International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: ICH harmonised tripartite guideline, statistical principles for clinical trials E9 [http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA485.pdf] webcite
• [5]CIOMS: Management of safety information from clinical trials: report of CIOMS working group VI. Geneva, Switzerland: Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS); 2005.
• [6]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press; 2004.
• [7]Farr JN, Jenkins JJ, Paterson DG: Simplification of Flesch reading ease formula. J Appl Psychol 1951, 35:333-337.
• [8]Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R: Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Volume 21. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1995.
• [9]Nieuwenhuijsen M: Design of exposure questionnaires for epidemiological studies. Occup Environ Med 2005, 62:272-280.
• [10]Tourangeau R, Couper MP, Conrad F: Spacing, position, and order: interpretive heuristics for visual features of survey questions. Pub Opin Quart 2004, 68:368-393.
• [11]Jenkins CR, Dillman DA: Towards a theory of self-administered questionnaire design. [http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/sm95-06.pdf] webcite
• [12]Tufte E: The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1999.
• [13]Garber MC, Nau DP, Erickson SR, Aikens JE, Lawrence JB: The concordance of self-report with other measures of medication adherence: a summary of the literature. Med Care 2004, 42:649-652.
• [14]Heerwegh D: Mode differences between face-to-face and web surveys: an experimental investigation of data quality and social desirability effects. Int J Pub Opin Res 2009, 21:111-121.
• [15]Willis GB: Cognitive interviewing: a how-to guide. [http://www.appliedresearch.cancer.gov/areas/cognitive/interview.pdf] webcite
• [16]Greenland S: Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol 1977, 106:184-187.
• [17]Kenward MG, Carpenter J: Multiple imputation: current perspectives. Stat Methods Med Res 2007, 16:199-218.
• [18]Edwards P, Roberts I, Sandercock P, Frost C: Follow-up by mail in clinical trials: does questionnaire length matter? Contr Clin Trials 2004, 25:31-52.
• [19]Rothman K, Mikkelsen EM, Riis A, Sørensen HT, Wise LA, Hatch EE: Randomized trial of questionnaire length. Epidemiology 2009, 20:154.
• [20]Sterne JAC, Davey Smith G: Sifting the evidence - what's wrong with significance tests? BMJ 2001, 322:226-231.
• [21]Edwards P, Cooper R, Roberts I, Frost C: Meta-analysis of randomised trials of monetary incentives and response to mailed questionnaires. J Epidemiol Comm Health 2005, 59:987-999.
• [22]Scott P, Edwards P: Personally addressed hand-signed letters increase questionnaire response: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6:111. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jørstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE: Maximising response to postal questionnaires - a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Kenyon S, Pike K, Jones D, Taylor D, Salt A, Marlow N, Brocklehurst P: The effect of a monetary incentive on return of a postal health and development questionnaire: a randomised trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2005, 5:55. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Gates S, Williams MA, Withers E, Williamson E, Mt-Isa S, Lamb SE: Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? The MINT incentive study. Trials 2009, 10:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]McColl E: Commentary: methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Int J Epidemiol 2007, 36:968.
• [27]McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess 2001, 5:1-256.
• [28]Edwards P, Fernandes J, Roberts I, Kuppermann N: Young men were at risk of becoming lost to follow-up in a cohort of head-injured adults. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:417-424.
• [29]Nakash R, Hutton JL, Lamb SE, Gates S, Fisher J: Response and non-response to postal questionnaire follow-up in a clinical trial - a qualitative study of the patient's perspective. J Eval Clin Prac 2008, 14:226-235.