Skip to main content

Table 3 As Per protocol-analysis

From: Pre-contact by telephone increases response rates to postal questionnaires in a population of stroke patients: an open ended randomized controlled trial

  1. Outcome (45 day RR.) 2. Outcome (365 day RR.)
  Resp Non-Resp Total RR Resp Non-Resp Total RR
IG 43 49a 92 46.7 % 45 47 92 51.1 %
CG 32a 93 125 25.6 % 36 89 125 28.8 %
Total 75 142 217b   81 136 217  
Test p OR [95 % CI]: ΔRR p OR [95 % CI]: ΔRR
Mid-p 0.001 2.535 [1.432, 4.540] 21.1 % 0.003 2.354 [1.343, 4.167] 22.3 %
Fisher’s 0.001     0.003    
χ 2 0.001     0.002    
  1. The table shows the 2x2-contingency tables w.r.t. 1. and 2. outcomes, with total figures for respondents (Resp) and non-respondents (Non-Resp) in the intervention- and control groups as defined in the APP-analysis. Response rates (RR) for the two study arms are also provided. Below the contingency tables we report the OR with 95 % CI’s, the absolute difference in response rates (ΔRR), and the p-values from three standard 2-sided tests for effect provided by the oddsratio-function from the epitools-package for R (CI’s are computed w.r.t. the mid-p value)
  2. aThe IG non-responders includes the 5 respondents who were successfully contacted, but refused participation in the questionnaire study; the CG responders includes 2 responders who were randomized to be pre-contacted, who were not successfully reached, but who nevertheless returned their questionnaires
  3. bOriginally 235 patients were included; 10 patients (7 from the IG and 3 from the CG) died before it was time to send them a questionnaire; 6 (3 in the IG and 3 in the CG) were discovered to be demented; 1 IG patient was discovered to have been mis-diagnosed with stroke, and one CG patient was discovered to have been mis-assessed as eligible. These 18 were excluded prior to analysis