A TALE OF TWO SURVEYS: PATIENT SURVEY RECRUITMENT VIA EMAILS AND LETTERS

• Published in: Value in health 2017-05, Vol.20 (5), p.A333
• Main Authors: Stephenson, JJ, Marshall, AR, Dinh, J, Merkh, RD, Paullin, M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arrhythmia; Cardiac arrhythmia; Consent; Cooperation; Diabetes mellitus; Electronic mail systems; Email; Insulin; Internet; Notification; Patients; Polls & surveys; Population studies; Recruitment; Review boards
• ISSN: 1098-3015; 1524-4733
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.005

OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast patient survey recruitment via pre-notification emails and mailed letters. METHODS: Patients were recruited for two survey studies using pre-notification emails and mailed letters. Study A's target population consisted of survey-eligible, commercially-insured patients with cardiac arrhythmia and Study B consisted of survey-eligible, commercially-insured type-2 diabetic insulin users. Patients for both studies were identified from administrative claims in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Study participation consisted of completing a one-time survey either via the internet or over the telephone. The protocols and all survey materials were approved by the New England Institutional Review Board. The recruitment pre-notification e-mails and letters contained information regarding the purpose of the survey, who was conducting the survey, participation criteria, a link to complete the survey via the internet and a phone number to complete the survey over the telephone. Patients who did not respond to the e-mails or letters were contacted by telephone and consenting patients completed the survey over the telephone. Summary sample dispositions, survey metrics and rates were calculated by study and type of recruitment and a descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Of Study A's 2,657 emails, 353 responded, 118 consented, 91 qualified and 80 completed the survey; of Study A's 3,638 letters, 447 responded, 268 consented, 230 qualified, and 224 completed the survey. Study A's email and letter list completion rates were 3.0% and 6.2%; cooperation rates were 24.5% and 54.8%. Of Study B's 4,624 emails, 376 responded, 251 consented, 207 qualified and 164 completed the survey; of Study B’s 5,132 letters, 419 responded, 298 consented, 253 qualified, and 236 completed the survey. Study B’s email and letter list completion rates were 3.5% and 4.6%; cooperation rates were 49.4% and 63.1%. CONCLUSIONS: More research is necessary to determine the impact of these recruitment methods in other therapeutic areas and study designs.