Characterizing participants who respond to text, email, phone calls, or postcards in a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study

Abstract

Introduction

Multiple modalities and frequencies of contact are needed to maximize recruitment in many public health surveys. The purpose of this analysis is to characterize respondents to a statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing study whose participation followed either postcard, phone outreach or electronic means of invitation. In addition, we examine how participant characteristics differ based upon the number of contacts needed to elicit participation.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from participants who were randomly selected to represent Indiana residents and were invited to be tested for Covid-19 in April 2020. Participants received invitations via postcard, text/emails, and/or robocalls/texts based upon available contact information. The modality, and frequency of contacts, that prompted participation was determined by when the notification was sent and when the participant responded and subsequently registered to participate in the study. Chi square analyses were used to determine differences between groups and significant findings were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression.

Results

Respondents included 3,658 individuals and were stratified by postcards (7.9%), text/emails (26.5%), and robocalls/text (65.7%) with 19.7% registering after 1 contact, 47.9% after 2 contacts, and 32.4% after 3 contacts encouraging participation. Females made up 54.6% of the sample and responded at a higher rate for postcards (8.2% vs. 7.5%) and text/emails (28.1 vs. 24.6%) as compared to males (χ² = 7.43, p = 0.025). Compared to males, females responded at a higher percentage after 1 contact (21.4 vs. 17.9%, χ² = 7.6, p = 0.023). Those over 60 years responded most often after 2 contacts (χ² = 27.5, p < 0.001) when compared to others at younger age groups. In regression analysis, participant sex (p = 0.036) age (p = 0.005), educational attainment (p = < 0.0001), and being motivated by “free testing” (p = 0.036) were correlated with participation in the prevalence study.

Discussion

Researchers should be aware that the modality of contact as well as the number of prompts used could influence differential participation in public health studies. Our findings can inform researchers developing studies that rely on selective participation by study subjects. We explore how to increase participation within targeted demographic groups using specific modalities and examining frequency of contact.