Keywords
study within a trial, pen, postal questionnaire, retention, randomised controlled trial, older people, multimorbidity
-
Views
63
Downloads
How to cite this article
Fairhurst C, Parkinson G, Hewitt C et al. Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13324.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Research Article
Revised
Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2023
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Plain Language Summary
Corresponding author:
Caroline Fairhurst
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information:
This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (Grant Reference Number 17/94/36). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:
© 2023 Fairhurst C et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Fairhurst C, Parkinson G, Hewitt C et al. Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13324.2)
First published: 31 Oct 2022, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13324.1)
Latest published: 20 Apr 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13324.2)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Revised Amendments from Version 1
In response to the reviewers’ very helpful comments, we have made the following amendments to the manuscript.
A sentence has been added to the Intervention section to explain that all participants, in both the intervention and control group, were sent an unconditional GBP 5 with questionnaires at all follow-up timepoints in the host trial as a thank you for their continuing participation. A justification for the absence of blinding of the trial statistician is now included in the Blinding section. We have added into the Methods section that we present the treatment effect for the primary outcome in the form of an adjusted absolute difference in proportions, as well as an odds ratio, and clarified that these are both estimated from the primary logistic regression model. We have also moved the description of the post hoc sensitivity analyses from the Results section to the Methods. We have changed the Kaplan-Meier graph to display the proportion responding and amended the scale of the x-axis (with increments every 7 days and labels every 14). Further detail on the distribution of the ‘number of items completed’ outcome is included in the Results section and we have introduced a post hoc Wilcoxon rank-sum test since there was evidence that the assumptions of the linear regression might not be met. We have also expanded on recommendations for future meta-analyses to correct for baseline risk in the Discussion section.
Other general edits have been made throughout the paper to improve clarity and readability.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Valarie Smith
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Graeme MacLennan
Introduction
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are one of the key tools used to analyse the effectiveness of a new treatment. However, poor recruitment and retention rates pose a serious threat to RCTs as they can render the results of the trial inconclusive, prolong the duration of the trial and can even lead to the trial being closed down early1. Participants not completing follow-up data collection, can be very problematic for RCTs as it reduces power and, if differential between the arms, can introduce attrition bias2.
Various strategies have been deployed to help maximise retention in RCTs3. One such strategy is to include a pen when posting a follow-up questionnaire. This strategy is hypothesised to help improve retention response rates as it gives participants the means to complete the questionnaire while also making participants feel more inclined to return the questionnaire due to encouragement of positive reciprocal behaviour provided by the pen4. A study within a trial (SWAT) aiming to investigate the impact of posting a pen with the 3-month follow-up participant questionnaire was embedded in the Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) trial5.
Previous evidence
The TRIAL FORGE initiative has published an evidence pack on the use of sending a pen with a trial questionnaire and/or study materials on response rate (https://www.trialforge.org/resource/evidence-pack-retention-adding-a-pen-ret3/). Based on five prior RCTs6–10, they concluded that sending a pen probably increases retention and response rate (random effects meta-analysis pooled effect: increase in response rates of 1.9%, 95% CI 0.0% to 3.7%). We shall update this meta-analysis with our results.
Methods
Study design
This SWAT was a two-armed RCT embedded in the GYY trial that aims to investigate the impact of the offer of participation in a 12-week Yoga programme on the health-related quality of life of older adults with multimorbidity in England and Wales5. This study is being conducted by the York Trials Unit (YTU), University of York (recruitment complete and trial in follow-up at the time of writing; ISRCTN13567538, registered 18/03/2019 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13567538). The SWAT was registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository on 01/04/2019 (SWAT92; https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/SWATSWARInformation/Repositories/SWATStore/). The GYY trial, and its embedded sub-studies, was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (ref 17/94/36) and received approval from the North East–York Research Ethics Committee on 24/04/2019 (19/NE/0072), and the Health Research Authority.
Participants
This study included participants allocated to the intervention arm of the GYY trial. Participants in the usual care arm of GYY were included in a different retention SWAT, namely the offer of a one-off GYY class at the end of their 12-month participation in the trial. This SWAT will be reported separately. For logistical reasons, participants were randomised into the SWAT immediately after being randomised into the intervention arm of the main trial, but only those sent their 3-month questionnaire are actually included in this SWAT. Participants were not informed in advance that they could be randomised into a SWAT to receive a pen with their 3-month questionnaire. This means that specific consent for the SWAT was not obtained; this was approved by the Research Ethics Committee as it was considered low risk. Written informed consent for the GYY main trial was obtained from all participants who took part.
Intervention
The 3-month questionnaire was a 16-page booklet containing the following questions and standardised instruments: EQ-5D-5L11, PHQ-812, GAD-713, PROMIS-2914, UCLA 3-Item Loneliness scale15,16 and a direct loneliness question used in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, and questions asking about recent falls, health resource use, and participation in yoga over the previous 3 months. All participants in the GYY trial, who provided a valid mobile phone number and consented to be contacted via text message, were sent an SMS on the day the 3-month questionnaire was posted to them to pre-notify participants of its imminent arrival. Participants were also sent an unconditional GBP 5 with the questionnaire – this was in the form of cash (GBP 5 note) prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, and a shopping voucher thereafter. This action formed part of the host trial’s approach to promoting continuing participation and was standard practice with each follow-up questionnaire across both arms of the GYY trial. In addition, participants in the intervention group of the SWAT were sent a retractable ballpoint, black ink pen, branded with the GYY trial logo (Figure 1) with their 3-month follow-up postal questionnaire whereas the control group were not sent a pen with their 3-month questionnaire. Participants who did not return their 3-month questionnaire within two weeks were sent a postal reminder questionnaire; pens were not sent with reminder notices in either group. Telephone reminders, up to a maximum of three phone calls per participant, were additionally employed if the 3-month questionnaire had still not been returned within two weeks of the reminder questionnaire being sent.
Figure 1. GYY logo-branded SWAT pen.
Sample size
No formal sample size calculation was undertaken as this was determined by the number of participants allocated to the intervention group of the main trial, which is typical for a SWAT. In this SWAT the 240 participants allocated to the intervention arm in the main trial were randomised; this sample size was sufficient to have 80% power to detect an increase in response rates from, for example, 80% in the ‘no pen’ group to 93% in the ‘pen’ group assuming 10% of participants withdraw before the 3-month follow-up timepoint.
Randomisation
Participants were randomised using simple randomisation and a 1:1 allocation ratio. The trial statistician, not otherwise involved in the recruitment or follow-up of participants, generated the allocation sequence using Stata v15 (RRID: SCR_012763). Stata is a proprietary software but an open-access alternative in which the sequence could have been generated is Google Sheets (RRID:SCR_017679).
Blinding
The nature of the intervention prevented the blinding of participants to their allocation. Nor were the statisticians analysing the data blinded, as the risk associated with this was deemed to be low as the outcomes are objective and were prespecified, along with the analyses, in the host trial protocol.
Outcomes
The primary outcome of this SWAT was the proportion of sent out 3-month follow-up questionnaires that were returned. Secondary outcomes were time taken to return the questionnaire, the proportion of participants who were sent a reminder to complete the questionnaire, and the completeness of the questionnaire. A full list of the outcomes measured in this SWAT are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1. Outcome measures of the SWAT.
Statistical analysis
Outcomes are summarised by group and overall. For binary outcome measures, the count and proportion are reported and mean and standard deviation for number of completed items. For time to return, the median survival time (from the Kaplan–Meier survivor function) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. Time to return was censored at 90 days (as participants were sent another follow-up questionnaire at 6 months post-randomisation) for participants who did not return their questionnaire.
Analyses were conducted under the principles of intention to treat (ITT) using two-tailed tests at the 5% significance level. Analyses were conducted in Stata v17 (RRID: SCR_012763). An open-access alternative that can perform an equivalent function to Stata for analysis is R, a free software environment for statistical computing and graphics (RRID: SCR_001905). The primary outcome of 3-month questionnaire response was analysed using logistic regression adjusting for SWAT group allocation (“pen” or “no pen”), age, gender and an indicator variable for if the participant was allocated to receive an intervention (pen and/or GBP 5 versus neither) in a previous 2×2 factorial SWAT, which was undertaken at the recruitment stage of the GYY trial17. The treatment effect is estimated from the logistic regression model and presented as an odds ratio (OR) and adjusted absolute difference in proportions, with associated 95% CI and p-value. The secondary outcomes were analysed as follows: time to return 3-month questionnaire by Cox Proportional Hazards model, with treatment effect presented as a hazard ratio (HR); whether a reminder was sent by logistic regression, with treatment effect presented as an OR; and number of completed items by linear regression, with treatment effect presented as a mean difference. The models were adjusted as for the primary analysis.
Post hoc sensitivity analyses were conducted for the time to return the 3-month questionnaire outcome following indications that the Proportional Hazards assumption was violated for the Cox model. The analyses included both a log-rank test and a generalized gamma accelerated failure time (AFT) model, which are, respectively, a simpler and more complex alternative to the Cox model that do not assume proportional hazards. There was also evidence that the standardised residuals for the linear regression of number of items completed were not normally distributed and so the assumptions of this approach were questionable. Therefore, a post hoc Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed, which does not make any assumption about the distribution.
27 participants in the pen group were not sent a pen with their questionnaire due to an administrative error; per-protocol (PP) analyses were additionally conducted by removing these participants from the analysis models.
Results
In total, 240 participants were randomised into the intervention arm of the main GYY trial, and 229 (95.4%) participants were sent their 3-month questionnaire and so were included in this SWAT (pen n=111; no pen n=118). The remaining 11 participants withdrew from the main trial before 3 months and so were not sent any follow-up questionnaires (6 (5.1%) from the pen group, and 5 (4.1%) from the no pen group). The questionnaires were mailed out between 20th January 2020 and 5th January 2022. Of participants sent a 3-month questionnaire, 144 (62.9%) were female (pen group n=66, 59.5%; no pen group n=78, 66.1%), the mean (SD) age was 73.2 (5.9) years (pen group 72.6 (5.5); no pen group 73.7 (6.2)), and 14 (6.1%) had been randomised to receive GBP 5 and/or a pen in the factorial recruitment SWAT (pen group n=7, 6.3%; no pen group n=7, 5.9%).
The proportion of participants who returned their 3-month questionnaire was similar in the two groups (pen n=107, 96.4%; no pen n=117, 99.2%) (Table 2). There was no evidence of a difference in return rates between the two groups (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.19, p=0.20). The adjusted difference in proportions was -2.6 percentage points (95% CI -6.4 to 1.1).
Table 2. Summary of SWAT trial results (ITT analysis).
There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants sent a reminder in each of the groups (pen n=30, 27.0%; no pen n=35, 29.7%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53, p=0.60), nor in the time to return the questionnaire. The median time to return was 22 days in the pen group and 21 days in the no pen group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, p=0.47) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier survivor functions for time to return 3-month follow up questionnaire.
While the Grambsch and Therneau18 test provided no evidence that the proportional hazards assumption had been violated (covariate-specific test for SWAT allocation p=0.56; global test p=0.56), the lines in the Kaplan–Meier curve for the time to return between the two groups cross one another, which can be an indication that the proportional hazards assumption is unsafe. The log-rank test and generalized gamma AFT model conducted as post hoc sensitivity analyses did not indicate evidence of a difference between the two groups (log-rank test: χ2(1)=0.67, p=0.41; AFT model: time ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23, p=0.56).
Among participants who returned a questionnaire, there was weak evidence of a difference in the number of items on the questionnaire completed between the two groups (mean (SD): pen 77.2 (1.4); no pen 76.6 (2.6), mean difference 0.51, 95% CI −0.04 to 1.06, p=0.07). However, there was evidence of a ceiling effect with this outcome, with 64.6% (n=148) of returned forms having 100% completion (response to all 78 items). Additionally, there was a difference in the variance between the two groups with a larger SD in the no pen group than the pen group. This was caused by a small number of participants completing noticeably fewer items in the pen group than the no pen group (range 62–78 compared to 72–78). The standardised residuals from the linear regression demonstrated deviation from normality and so a post hoc Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed, which indicated some evidence of a difference (p=0.09).
Per-protocol analysis
A total of 202 participants were included in the per-protocol analyses (pen n=84; no pen n=118). Among these, 129 (63.9%) were female (pen group n=51, 60.7%; no pen group n=78, 66.1%), the mean (SD) age was 73.7 (6.0) years (pen group 73.7 (5.8); no pen group 73.7 (6.2)), and 11 (5.5%) had been randomised to receive GBP 5 and/or a pen in the factorial recruitment SWAT (pen group n=4, 4.8%; no pen group n=7, 5.9%). Results are provided in Table 3 and are similar to the ITT analysis.
Table 3. Summary of SWAT trial results (PP analysis).
Meta-analysis
Details of the included studies are as follows. Bell et al. (2016)6 evaluated the use of adding a pen to the 60-month questionnaire in a trial of screening for the prevention of fractures in women aged 70–85 years; in Cunningham-Burley et al. (2020)7, the pen was added to the 14-week questionnaire in a slip-prevention trial among NHS staff (mean (SD) age 43 (11.3) years); James et al. (2020)8 enclosed the pen in the 12-month questionnaire in a falls prevention trial in older people (65 years+); Mitchell et al. (2020)9 investigated pens for the 14-week questionnaire in an orthopaedic trial (mean (SD) age 69 (8.9) years); and Sharp et al. (2006)10 embedded the pen SWAT in a cervical screening trial in women (mean (SD) age 34 (10.4) years) at their next follow-up (12, 18, 24, or 30 months). A random effects meta-analysis conducted using RevMan 5.3 (RRID: SCR_003581) indicated that the pooled effect across the six included studies was a risk difference, favouring use of a pen, of 1% (95% CI -1% to 4%, p=0.20; Figure 3). An I2 value of 66% indicates moderate to large heterogeneity.
Figure 3. Meta-analysis of inclusion of a pen on questionnaire return rates.
Discussion
The results of this trial do not indicate any demonstrable benefit of including a trial-branded pen with the postal 3-month questionnaire in the GYY trial. Indeed, a slightly higher response rate was observed in the no pen arm, albeit this required a marginally higher proportion of participants to be sent a reminder notice than in the pen group. The scope for improvement in the return rate for the questionnaire was extremely limited given that, in the no pen group, all but one participant who was sent a questionnaire returned it. Furthermore, because of the high rate of return in the control group, the trial was severely underpowered to be able to detect a difference and so we would not have expected any statistically significant results.
In the meta-analysis, two trials were observed to have a negative effect, ours and James et al. (2021); in both of these, the overall response rate was over 95%, whereas response rates averaged 78% among the four positive component trials. This may explain some of the heterogeneity observed, and further evidence the limited potential for improvement when the response rates are already high. To address these limitations, future meta-analyses could include factors to correct for baseline response rates, allowing the impact of consistently high response rates to be accounted for.
Follow-up in GYY straddled the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. A quarter of the 3-month questionnaires were sent out prior to COVID-19 having any real presence in our daily lives (all in January 2020), the next 3-month follow-ups were only due in December 2020 or later (up to January 2022). An exploratory, post hoc examination of the data suggests response rates were higher, across both the pen and no pen groups, in the follow-ups sent during the pandemic (97.7% and 100%, respectively) than those sent before (91.7% and 96.9%, respectively). This may be a chance finding, or it is possibly a direct consequence of the pandemic. Participants, particularly given their age, were likely to be adhering to social isolation guidelines and so may have had more time at home to complete the questionnaire. Additionally, it is feasible that news coverage of the pandemic could have increased awareness and respect in the population of the importance of research, trials and data, thus leading to greater engagement in the trial. The continually high response rates might additionally be attributed to the age group of participants, with many likely to be out of full-time employment or retired, hence able to more easily allocate time to completing and returning questionnaires, despite their reasonable length (the 3-month questionnaire was 16 pages long).
The strength of this study was that it was a randomised trial; however, since it was conducted in a population of older adults with multimorbidity, and particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, findings may not be generalizable to other populations or contexts. This trial already implemented several retention strategies including sending an SMS to participants a few days before their postal questionnaire arrived, including an unconditional GBP 5 ‘thank you’ payment, and reminder questionnaires and phone calls. All of these may have lessened the potential benefit of the addition of a pen with the mail out. Also, the incentive was tested at a reasonably early timepoint in the trial (3 months), when engagement in the trial might still be expected to be high; perhaps an increased benefit would have been seen at a later timepoint (further follow-ups in GYY were conducted at 6 and 12 months).
Conclusion
This SWAT suggests that enclosing a pen in a questionnaire mail out may not be an effective method to increase response rates in a trial of older adults with multimorbidity, particularly when other initiatives are in place, such as a prenotification SMS, an unconditional financial incentive, and a robust reminder procedure as was the case in this trial. Nevertheless, this SWAT adds to the growing evidence base of the effect of sending a pen out to trial participants on the rate of retention. Current pooled evidence suggests pens may still offer an effective incentive for improving response rates.
Download
Export To
CITE
how to cite this article
Fairhurst C, Parkinson G, Hewitt C et al. Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13324.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2023
Revised
Views
11
How to cite this report:
MacLennan G. Reviewer Report For: Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14559.r29183)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v2#referee-response-29183
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v2#referee-response-29183
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 20 Apr 2023
Approved
VIEWS 11
No further
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
MacLennan G. Reviewer Report For: Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14559.r29183)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v2#referee-response-29183
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v2#referee-response-29183
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2022
Views
11
How to cite this report:
Smith V. Reviewer Report For: Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14450.r29002)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-29002
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-29002
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 20 Feb 2023
Approved
VIEWS 11
This is a well-written paper that adds to the body of evidence on the use of a pen for the return of follow-up questionnaires in a trial. The study is presented as a SWAT and is methodologically sound. I enjoyed
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Smith V. Reviewer Report For: Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14450.r29002)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-29002
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-29002
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 20 Apr 2023Caroline Fairhurst, York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK20 Apr 2023Author ResponseWe would like to thank the reviewer for their thorough and constructive feedback. We outline below our responses and the changes made to the manuscript, which we believe have really ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 20 Apr 2023Caroline Fairhurst, York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK20 Apr 2023Author ResponseWe would like to thank the reviewer for their thorough and constructive feedback. We outline below our responses and the changes made to the manuscript, which we believe have really ... Continue reading
Views
17
How to cite this report:
MacLennan G. Reviewer Report For: Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14450.r28906)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-28906
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-28906
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 23 Jan 2023
Approved
VIEWS 17
This manuscript describes the results of a randomised SWAT to evaluate the inclusion of a pen to with a questionnaire to improve response the Gentle Years Yoga trial. My review is primarily statistical, I have only minor comments and suggestions:
... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
MacLennan G. Reviewer Report For: Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2023, 2:53 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14450.r28906)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-28906
https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/2-53/v1#referee-response-28906
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
-
Author Response 20 Apr 2023Caroline Fairhurst, York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK20 Apr 2023Author ResponseWe would like to thank the reviewer for their thorough and constructive feedback. We outline below our responses and the changes made to the manuscript, which we believe have really ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
-
Author Response 20 Apr 2023Caroline Fairhurst, York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK20 Apr 2023Author ResponseWe would like to thank the reviewer for their thorough and constructive feedback. We outline below our responses and the changes made to the manuscript, which we believe have really ... Continue reading
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
- Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
- You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
- You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
- You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
- You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
- You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
- You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with NIHR Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Comments on this article Comments (0)