Search

BackgroundAutomated Internet intervention studies have generally had large dropout rates for follow-up assessments. Live phone follow-ups have been often used to increase follow-up completion rates.ObjectiveTo compare, via a randomized study, whether receiving phone calls improves follow-up rates beyond email reminders and financial incentives in a depression prevention study.MethodA sample of 95 participants (63 English-speakers and 32 Spanish-speakers) was recruited online to participate in a "Healthy Mood" study. Consented participants were randomized to either a Call or a No Call condition. All participants were sent up to three email reminders in one week at 1, 3, and 6 months after consent, and all participants received monetary incentives to complete the surveys. Those in the Call condition received up to ten follow-up phone calls if they did not complete the surveys in response to email reminders.ResultsThe follow-up rates for Call vs. No Call conditions at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively, were as follows: English speakers, 58.6% vs. 52.9%, 62.1% vs. 52.9%, and 68.9% vs. 47.1%; Spanish speakers, 50.0% vs. 35.7%, 33.3% vs. 21.4%, and 33.3% vs. 7.1%. The number of participants who completed follow-up assessments only after being called at 1-, 3- and 6 months was 2 (14.3%), 0 (0%), and 3 (25.0%) for English speakers, and 2 (18.9%), 0 (0%), and 1 (7.7%) for Spanish speakers. The number of phone calls made to achieve one completed follow-up was 58.8 in the English sample and 57.7 and Spanish-speaking sample.ConclusionsAdding phone call contacts to email reminders and monetary incentives did increase follow-up rates. However, the rate of response to follow-up was low and the number of phone calls required to achieve one completed follow-up raises concerns about the utility of adding phone calls. We also discuss difficulties with using financial incentives and their implications.

Clinical psychology training for research-oriented scientist-practitioners tends to have a gap in research training during the predoctoral internship year. In 1982, the Clinical Psychology Training Program (CPTP) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) began a 2-year clinical and clinical research training program combining an American Psychology Association (APA)-accredited internship and a postdoctoral fellowship. The goal of the program is to prepare graduates for leadership roles as principal investigators who are licensed clinicians able to function as independent practitioners. This article conveys the philosophy behind the program, its structure, and the results of the program over the last 31 years. The CPTP accepted 142 trainees, of whom 46 (32%) were minorities and 78 (55%) were women. CPTP fellows have published over 250 articles, chapters, and books with their mentors and have contributed to submitting research grants with them. The vast majority continued research and academic activities after graduation. The most recent self-study for APA accreditation reported that of 43 trainees admitted in the 10 years between 1999 and 2008, 41 (95%) went on to academic positions, research, or clinical positions in academic settings or research positions in other settings; 1 obtained a clinical position; and 1 provided no information. The program serves as a model for clinical psychology nationally, allowing for uninterrupted clinical research training during the internship and postdoctoral years, nurturing clinical psychologists committed to clinical research careers, and contributing substantially to the clinical research productivity of the host department.