Literature DB >> 12218773

Randomized trial of 5 dollars versus 10 dollars monetary incentives, envelope size, and candy to increase physician response rates to mailed questionnaires.

Scott D Halpern1, Peter A Ubel, Jesse A Berlin, David A Asch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The validity of the results of mailed surveys is often threatened by nonresponse bias, which is made more likely when response rates are low. However, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of several strategies to increase response rates are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES: To assess three strategies to increase response rates to mailed physician surveys: including a 10 dollars versus a 5 dollars cash incentive in the initial mailing, including a mint candy or not, and using a large versus small outgoing envelope. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
SUBJECTS: Using a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, a randomized trial of these strategies was conducted in a survey of 1200 physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association's Master File.
RESULTS: Including a 10 dollars incentive yielded a significantly higher response rate (60.5% vs. 52.8%) (P = 0.009). The mailing and incentive costs per completed response were 12.24 dollars (95% CI, 11.75 dollars, 13.64 dollars) in the 5 dollars group and 18.48 dollars (95% CI, 17.77 dollars, 20.69 dollars) in the 10 dollars group. Each additional response obtained in the 10 dollars group came at an incremental cost of 61.26 dollars (95% CI, 36.98 dollars, 200.80 dollars). Neither inclusion of a mint nor use of a large envelope influenced the response rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Investigators may increase response rates by including more money in the initial questionnaire packet, but there may be diminishing returns to serial increments in incentives greater than 5 dollars. Including smaller incentives in more questionnaires may maximize total responses.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12218773     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  35 in total

Review 1.  Administering, analysing, and reporting your questionnaire.

Authors:  Petra M Boynton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-05

2.  Postgraduate physiotherapy training: interest and perceived barriers to participation in a clinical master's degree programme.

Authors:  Meena M Sran; Sue Murphy
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2009-11-12       Impact factor: 1.037

3.  Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians.

Authors:  William L Cull; Karen G O'Connor; Sanford Sharp; Suk-fong S Tang
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Reaching Asian Americans: sampling strategies and incentives.

Authors:  Soo-Kyung Lee; Yu-Yao Cheng
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2006-07

5.  Lottery-based versus fixed incentives to increase clinicians' response to surveys.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Rachel Kohn; Aaron Dornbrand-Lo; Thomas Metkus; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-14       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Evaluating survey quality in health services research: a decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias.

Authors:  Jonathon R B Halbesleben; Marilyn V Whitman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Survey Methods to Optimize Response Rate in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Ellen Funkhouser; Kavya Vellala; Camille Baltuck; Rita Cacciato; Emily Durand; Deborah McEdward; Ellen Sowell; Sarah E Theisen; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2016-01-10       Impact factor: 2.651

8.  Surveying multiple health professional team members within institutional settings: an example from the nursing home industry.

Authors:  Melissa A Clark; Anthony Roman; Michelle L Rogers; Denise A Tyler; Vincent Mor
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.651

9.  Qualitative responses to a national physician survey on HPV vaccination.

Authors:  Susan T Vadaparampil; Devin Murphy; Maria Rodriguez; Teri L Malo; Gwendolyn P Quinn
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.641

10.  Physicians' preferences for active-controlled versus placebo-controlled trials of new antihypertensive drugs.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Peter A Ubel; Jesse A Berlin; Raymond R Townsend; David A Asch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.