Theoretically-informed vs standard cover letter to improve participant response to mailed questionnaire: results of an embedded randomised retention trial.
- DOI
- 10.1186/s13063-024-08565-0
- Published
- 2024-11-14
- Container
- Trials
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
limited evidence Score 45/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.1186/s13063-024-08565-0,
title = {Theoretically-informed vs standard cover letter to improve participant response to mailed questionnaire: results of an embedded randomised retention trial.},
author = {Everett CC and Brown ST and Dennett JL and Collier H and Davies CL and Game F and Nelson EA.},
year = {2024},
journal = {Trials},
doi = {10.1186/s13063-024-08565-0},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08565-0}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Theoretically-informed vs standard cover letter to improve participant response to mailed questionnaire: results of an embedded randomised retention trial. AU - Everett CC AU - Brown ST AU - Dennett JL AU - Collier H AU - Davies CL AU - Game F AU - Nelson EA. PY - 2024 JO - Trials DO - 10.1186/s13063-024-08565-0 UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08565-0 ER -
APA
CC, E., ST, B., JL, D., H, C., CL, D., F, G., & EA., N. (2024). Theoretically-informed vs standard cover letter to improve participant response to mailed questionnaire: results of an embedded randomised retention trial.. Trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08565-0
Source records
- europe-pmc · retrieved 2026-11-10T11:58:48.711Z