Search

Your search keyword '"EQUAL Investigators"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "EQUAL Investigators" Topic r5-920
2 results on '"EQUAL Investigators"'

1. Converting from face-to-face to postal follow-up and its effects on participant retention, response rates and errors: lessons from the EQUAL study in the UK

Author

Emer Gates, Barnaby Hole, Samantha Hayward, Nicholas C. Chesnaye, Yvette Meuleman, Friedo W. Dekker, Marie Evans, Olof Heimburger, Claudia Torino, Gaetana Porto, Maciej Szymczak, Christiane Drechsler, Christoph Wanner, Kitty J. Jager, Paul Roderick, Fergus Caskey, and for the EQUAL investigators

Subjects
Chronic kidney disease, Prospective cohort study, Retention, Follow-up, Response rates, Errors, Medicine (General), R5-920
Abstract

Abstract Background Prospective cohort studies are challenging to deliver, with one of the main difficulties lying in retention of participants. The need to socially distance during the COVID-19 pandemic has added to this challenge. The pre-COVID-19 adaptation of the European Quality (EQUAL) study in the UK to a remote form of follow-up for efficiency provides lessons for those who are considering changing their study design. Methods The EQUAL study is an international prospective cohort study of patients ≥65 years of age with advanced chronic kidney disease. Initially, patients were invited to complete a questionnaire (SF-36, Dialysis Symptom Index and Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at research clinics every 3–6 months, known as “traditional follow-up” (TFU). In 2018, all living patients were invited to switch to “efficient follow-up” (EFU), which used an abbreviated questionnaire consisting of SF-12 and Dialysis Symptom Index. These were administered centrally by post. Response rates were calculated using returned questionnaires as a proportion of surviving invitees, and error rates presented as the average percentage of unanswered questions or unclear answers, of total questions in returned questionnaires. Response and error rates were calculated 6-monthly in TFU to allow comparisons with EFU. Results Of the 504 patients initially recruited, 236 were still alive at the time of conversion to EFU; 111 of these (47%) consented to the change in follow-up. In those who consented, median TFU was 34 months, ranging from 0 to 42 months. Their response rates fell steadily from 88% (98/111) at month 0 of TFU, to 20% (3/15) at month 42. The response rate for the first EFU questionnaire was 60% (59/99) of those alive from TFU. With this improvement in response rates, the first EFU also lowered errors to baseline levels seen in early follow-up, after having almost trebled throughout traditional follow-up. Conclusions Overall, this study demonstrates that administration of shorter follow-up questionnaires by post rather than in person does not negatively impact patient response or error rates. These results may be reassuring for researchers who are trying to limit face-to-face contact with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Converting from face-to-face to postal follow-up and its effects on participant retention, response rates and errors:lessons from the EQUAL study in the UK

Author

Gates, E., Hole, B., Hayward, S., Chesnaye, N.C., Meuleman, Y., Dekker, F.W., Evans, M., Heimburger, O., Torino, C., Porto, G., Szymczak, M., Drechsler, C., Wanner, C., Jager, K.J., Roderick, P., Caskey, F., EQUAL Investigators, Medical Informatics, ACS - Pulmonary hypertension & thrombosis, APH - Aging & Later Life, APH - Methodology, APH - Quality of Care, APH - Global Health, and APH - Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases

Subjects
Medicine (General), retention, Epidemiology, Errors, Health Informatics, Face-to-face, R5-920, response rates, Chronic kidney disease, follow-up, Humans, errors, Prospective Studies, Pandemics, prospective cohort study, SARS-CoV-2, Follow-up, COVID-19, Response rates, United Kingdom, Prospective cohort study, Retention, Optometry, Psychology, chronic kidney disease, Follow-Up Studies
Abstract

Background Prospective cohort studies are challenging to deliver, with one of the main difficulties lying in retention of participants. The need to socially distance during the COVID-19 pandemic has added to this challenge. The pre-COVID-19 adaptation of the European Quality (EQUAL) study in the UK to a remote form of follow-up for efficiency provides lessons for those who are considering changing their study design. Methods The EQUAL study is an international prospective cohort study of patients ≥65 years of age with advanced chronic kidney disease. Initially, patients were invited to complete a questionnaire (SF-36, Dialysis Symptom Index and Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at research clinics every 3–6 months, known as “traditional follow-up” (TFU). In 2018, all living patients were invited to switch to “efficient follow-up” (EFU), which used an abbreviated questionnaire consisting of SF-12 and Dialysis Symptom Index. These were administered centrally by post. Response rates were calculated using returned questionnaires as a proportion of surviving invitees, and error rates presented as the average percentage of unanswered questions or unclear answers, of total questions in returned questionnaires. Response and error rates were calculated 6-monthly in TFU to allow comparisons with EFU. Results Of the 504 patients initially recruited, 236 were still alive at the time of conversion to EFU; 111 of these (47%) consented to the change in follow-up. In those who consented, median TFU was 34 months, ranging from 0 to 42 months. Their response rates fell steadily from 88% (98/111) at month 0 of TFU, to 20% (3/15) at month 42. The response rate for the first EFU questionnaire was 60% (59/99) of those alive from TFU. With this improvement in response rates, the first EFU also lowered errors to baseline levels seen in early follow-up, after having almost trebled throughout traditional follow-up. Conclusions Overall, this study demonstrates that administration of shorter follow-up questionnaires by post rather than in person does not negatively impact patient response or error rates. These results may be reassuring for researchers who are trying to limit face-to-face contact with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Published
2022

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results