Background Prospective cohort studies are challenging to deliver, with one of the main difficulties lying in retention of participants. The need to socially distance during the COVID-19 pandemic... Show moreBackground Prospective cohort studies are challenging to deliver, with one of the main difficulties lying in retention of participants. The need to socially distance during the COVID-19 pandemic has added to this challenge. The pre-COVID-19 adaptation of the European Quality (EQUAL) study in the UK to a remote form of follow-up for efficiency provides lessons for those who are considering changing their study design. Methods The EQUAL study is an international prospective cohort study of patients >= 65 years of age with advanced chronic kidney disease. Initially, patients were invited to complete a questionnaire (SF-36, Dialysis Symptom Index and Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at research clinics every 3-6 months, known as "traditional follow-up" (TFU). In 2018, all living patients were invited to switch to "efficient follow-up" (EFU), which used an abbreviated questionnaire consisting of SF-12 and Dialysis Symptom Index. These were administered centrally by post. Response rates were calculated using returned questionnaires as a proportion of surviving invitees, and error rates presented as the average percentage of unanswered questions or unclear answers, of total questions in returned questionnaires. Response and error rates were calculated 6-monthly in TFU to allow comparisons with EFU. Results Of the 504 patients initially recruited, 236 were still alive at the time of conversion to EFU; 111 of these (47%) consented to the change in follow-up. In those who consented, median TFU was 34 months, ranging from 0 to 42 months. Their response rates fell steadily from 88% (98/111) at month 0 of TFU, to 20% (3/15) at month 42. The response rate for the first EFU questionnaire was 60% (59/99) of those alive from TFU. With this improvement in response rates, the first EFU also lowered errors to baseline levels seen in early follow-up, after having almost trebled throughout traditional follow-up. Conclusions Overall, this study demonstrates that administration of shorter follow-up questionnaires by post rather than in person does not negatively impact patient response or error rates. These results may be reassuring for researchers who are trying to limit face-to-face contact with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Show less
Spruit, I.M.; Wilderjans, T.F.; Steenbergen, H. van 2018
Posterror slowing (PES) is the observation that people respond slower on trials subsequent to error commissions than on trials subsequent to correct responses. Different accounts have been proposed... Show morePosterror slowing (PES) is the observation that people respond slower on trials subsequent to error commissions than on trials subsequent to correct responses. Different accounts have been proposed to explain PES. On the one hand, it has been suggested that PES arises from an adaptive increase in cognitive control following error commission, thereby making people more cautious after making an error. On the other hand, PES has been attributed to an orienting response, indicating that attention is shifted toward the error. In the present study we tested these accounts by investigating the effects of error commission in both flanker and switch tasks on two task-evoked cardiac measures: the interbeat interval—that is, the interval between two consecutive R peaks—and the RZ interval—that is, the interval between the R peak and the Z point—as measured using electro- and impedance cardiography, respectively. These measures allowed us to measure cardiac deceleration (autonomic orienting) and cardiac effort mobilization, respectively. Our results revealed a shorter RZ interval during posterror trials, indicating increased effort mobilization following errors. In addition, we replicated earlier studies that have shown cardiac slowing during error trials. However, multilevel analyses showed that only the posterror decrease in RZ interval predicted posterror reaction times, whereas there was no positive relationship between error-related cardiac deceleration and posterror reaction times. Our results suggest that PES is related to increased cardiac effort, supporting a cognitive-control account of PES. Show less
