A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surveys of doctors are an important data collection method in health services research. Ways to improve response rates, minimise survey response bias and item non-response, within a given budget, have not previously been addressed in the same study. The aim of this paper is to compare the effects and costs of three different modes of survey administration in a national survey of doctors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A stratified random sample of 4.9% (2,702/54,160) of doctors undertaking clinical practice was drawn from a national directory of all doctors in Australia. Stratification was by four doctor types: general practitioners, specialists, specialists-in-training, and hospital non-specialists, and by six rural/remote categories. A three-arm parallel trial design with equal randomisation across arms was used. Doctors were randomly allocated to: online questionnaire (902); simultaneous mixed mode (a paper questionnaire and login details sent together) (900); or, sequential mixed mode (online followed by a paper questionnaire with the reminder) (900). Analysis was by intention to treat, as within each primary mode, doctors could choose either paper or online. Primary outcome measures were response rate, survey response bias, item non-response, and cost.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The online mode had a response rate 12.95%, followed by the simultaneous mixed mode with 19.7%, and the sequential mixed mode with 20.7%. After adjusting for observed differences between the groups, the online mode had a 7 percentage point lower response rate compared to the simultaneous mixed mode, and a 7.7 percentage point lower response rate compared to sequential mixed mode. The difference in response rate between the sequential and simultaneous modes was not statistically significant. Both mixed modes showed evidence of response bias, whilst the characteristics of online respondents were similar to the population. However, the online mode had a higher rate of item non-response compared to both mixed modes. The total cost of the online survey was 38% lower than simultaneous mixed mode and 22% lower than sequential mixed mode. The cost of the sequential mixed mode was 14% lower than simultaneous mixed mode. Compared to the online mode, the sequential mixed mode was the most cost-effective, although exhibiting some evidence of response bias.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Decisions on which survey mode to use depend on response rates, response bias, item non-response and costs. The sequential mixed mode appears to be the most cost-effective mode of survey administration for surveys of the population of doctors, if one is prepared to accept a degree of response bias. Online surveys are not yet suitable to be used exclusively for surveys of the doctor population.</p

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Participation Willingness in Web Surveys: Exploring Effect of Sponsoring Corporation's and Survey Provider's Reputation

Prior research involving response rates in Web-based surveys has not adequately addressed the effect of the reputation of a sponsoring corporation that contracts with a survey provider. This study investigates the effect of two factors, namely, the reputation of a survey's provider and the reputation of a survey's sponsoring corporation, on the willingness of potential respondents to participate in a Web survey. Results of an experimental design with these two factors reveal that the sponsoring corporation's and the survey provider's strong reputations can induce potential respondents to participate in a Web survey. A sponsoring corporation's reputation has a greater effect on the participation willingness of potential respondents of a Web survey than the reputation of the survey provider. A sponsoring corporation with a weak reputation who contracts with a survey provider having a strong reputation results in increased participation willingness from potential respondents if the identity of the sponsoring corporation is disguised in a survey. This study identifies the most effective strategy to increase participation willingness for a Web-based survey by considering both the reputations of the sponsoring corporation and survey provider and whether to reveal their identities