Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

Two-by-two factorial randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate strategies for follow-up in a randomised prevention trial

Authors: Lucy E. Bradshaw, Alan A. Montgomery, Hywel C. Williams, Joanne R. Chalmers, Rachel H. Haines

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Failure to collect outcome data in randomised trials can result in bias and loss of statistical power. Further evaluations of strategies to increase retention are required. We assessed the effectiveness of two strategies for retention in a randomised prevention trial using a two-by-two factorial randomised study within a trial (SWAT).

Methods

Parents of babies included in the host trial were randomised to (1) short message service (SMS) notification prior to sending questionnaires at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months versus no SMS notification and (2) a £10 voucher sent with the invitation letter for the primary follow-up visit at 24 months or given at the visit. The two co-primary outcomes were collection of host trial (1) questionnaire data at interim follow-up times and (2) primary outcome at 24 months during a home/clinic visit with a research nurse.

Results

Between November 2014 and November 2016, 1394 participants were randomised: 350 to no SMS + voucher at visit, 345 to SMS + voucher at visit, 352 to no SMS + voucher before visit and 347 to SMS + voucher before visit. Overall questionnaire data was collected at interim follow-up times for 75% in both the group allocated to the prior SMS notification and the group allocated to no SMS notification (odds ratio (OR) SMS versus none 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25). Host trial primary outcome data was collected at a visit for 557 (80%) allocated to the voucher before the visit in the invitation letter and for 566 (81%) whose parents were allocated to receive the voucher at the visit (OR before versus at visit 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17).

Conclusion

There was no evidence of a difference in retention according to SMS notification or voucher timing. Future synthesis of SWAT results is required to be able to detect small but important incremental effects of retention strategies.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN21528841. Registered on 25 July 2014. SWAT Repository Store ID 25.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Daykin A, Clement C, Gamble C, Kearney A, Blazeby J, Clarke M, et al. ‘Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment’ – the need for more focus on retention: a qualitative study of five trials. Trials. 2018;19(1):76.CrossRef
2.
Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15(1):32.CrossRef
3.
Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, et al. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials. 2014;15(1):399.CrossRef
4.
Brueton VC, Tierney J, Stenning S, Harding S, Meredith S, Nazareth I, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:MR000032.
5.
Treweek S, Altman DG, Bower P, Campbell M, Chalmers I, Cotton S, et al. Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform. Trials. 2015;16(1):261.CrossRef
6.
Chalmers JR, Haines RH, Mitchell EJ, Thomas KS, Brown SJ, Ridd M, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children (The BEEP trial): protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):343.CrossRef
7.
Simpson EL, Chalmers JR, Hanifin JM, Thomas KS, Cork MJ, McLean WH, et al. Emollient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(4):818–23.CrossRef
8.
9.
Clark L, Ronaldson S, Dyson L, Hewitt C, Torgerson D, Adamson J. Electronic prompts significantly increase response rates to postal questionnaires: a randomized trial within a randomized trial and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1446–50.CrossRef
10.
Keding A, Brabyn S, MacPherson H, Richmond SJ, Torgerson DJ. Text message reminders to improve questionnaire response rates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:90–5.CrossRef
11.
Starr K, McPherson G, Forrest M, Cotton SC. SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:295.CrossRef
12.
Hardy P, Bell JL, Brocklehurst P, Bick D, Briley A, Juszczak E, et al. Evaluation of the effects of an offer of a monetary incentive on the rate of questionnaire return during follow-up of a clinical trial: a randomised study within a trial. BMC Me Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):82.CrossRef
13.
Young B, Bedford L, das Nair R, Gallant S, Littleford R, Robertson JFR, et al. Unconditional and conditional monetary incentives to increase response to mailed questionnaires: a randomized controlled study within a trial (SWAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26:893–902.
14.
15.
16.
Brunsdon D, Biesty L, Brocklehurst P, Brueton V, Devane D, Elliott J, et al. What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – The PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) Study. Trials. 2019;20:593.CrossRef
17.
18.
Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, Briel M, Campbell M, Christie J, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 2: how to decide if a further Study Within A Trial (SWAT) is needed. Trials. 2020;21(1):33.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Two-by-two factorial randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate strategies for follow-up in a randomised prevention trial
Authors
Lucy E. Bradshaw
Alan A. Montgomery
Hywel C. Williams
Joanne R. Chalmers
Rachel H. Haines
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04373-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Trials 1/2020 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Study protocol of the multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the Frankfurt Early Intervention Programme A-FFIP versus early intervention as usual for toddlers and preschool children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (A-FFIP study)

Study protocol

Smartphone-based secondary prevention intervention for university students with unhealthy alcohol use identified by screening: study protocol of a parallel group randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus monotherapy and cyclophosphamide combined with glucocorticoid in the treatment of adult primary membranous nephropathy: protocol of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open study

Study protocol

A trial protocol for the effectiveness of digital interventions for preventing depression in adolescents: The Future Proofing Study

Research

Accuracy of time to treatment estimates in the CRASH-3 clinical trial: impact on the trial results

Study protocol

CareConekta: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention to improve engagement in postpartum HIV care in South Africa