Literature DB >> 12672684

Randomized trial of financial incentives and delivery methods for improving response to a mailed questionnaire.

Michele Morin Doody1, Alice S Sigurdson, Diane Kampa, Kathleen Chimes, Bruce H Alexander, Elaine Ron, Robert E Tarone, Martha S Linet.   

Abstract

In a follow-up study, only 64% of 126,628 US radiologic technologists completed a questionnaire during 1994-1997 after two mailings. The authors conducted a randomized trial of financial incentives and delivery methods to identify the least costly approach for increasing overall participation. They randomly selected nine samples of 300 nonresponders each to receive combinations of no, 1.00 US dollar, 2.00 US dollars, and 5.00 US dollars cash or check incentives delivered by first-class mail or Federal Express. Federal Express delivery did not achieve greater participation than first-class mail (23.2% vs. 23.7%). In analyses pooled across delivery methods, the response was significantly greater for the 2.00 US dollar bill (28.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 25.2, 32.7; p < 0.0001), 5.00 US dollars check (27.5%, 95% CI: 22.5, 33.0; p = 0.0001), 1.00 US dollar bill (24.6%, 95% CI: 21.2, 28.3; p = 0.0007), and 2.00 US dollars check (21.8%, 95% CI: 18.5, 25.3; p = 0.02) compared with no incentive (16.6%, 95% CI: 13.7, 19.9). The response increased significantly with increasing incentive amounts from 0.00 to 2.00 US dollars cash (p trend < 0.0001). The 2.00 US dollar bill achieved a 30% greater response than did a 2.00 US dollars check (p = 0.005). For incentives sent by first-class mail, the 5.00 US dollars check yielded 30% greater participation than did the 2.00 US dollars check (p = 0.07). A 1.00 US dollar bill, chosen instead of the 2.00 US dollars bill because of substantially lower overall cost and sent by first-class mail to the remaining 42,717 nonresponders, increased response from 64% to 72%.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12672684     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  18 in total

1.  Recruitment for genetic studies of epilepsy.

Authors:  Sylwia Misiewicz; Melodie R Winawer
Journal:  Epilepsy Res       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 3.045

2.  Payment of clinical research subjects.

Authors:  Christine Grady
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 3.  Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of recruitment interventions.

Authors:  Stacy J UyBico; Shani Pavel; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Development and preliminary results of the Financial Incentive Coercion Assessment questionnaire.

Authors:  Margaret M Byrne; Jason R Croft; Michael T French; Karen L Dugosh; David S Festinger
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2011-11-23

5.  Why do we pay? A national survey of investigators and IRB chairpersons.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ripley; Francis Macrina; Monika Markowitz; Chris Gennings
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Who's doing the math? Are we really compensating research participants?

Authors:  Elizabeth Ripley; Francis Macrina; Monika Markowitz; Chris Gennings
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  Wireless Participant Incentives Using Reloadable Bank Cards to Increase Clinical Trial Retention With Abused Women Drinkers: A Natural Experiment.

Authors:  Melissa Rodgers; Zachary Meisel; Douglas Wiebe; Paul Crits-Christoph; Karin V Rhodes
Journal:  J Interpers Violence       Date:  2016-08-07

8.  Effect of incentives and mailing features on online health program enrollment.

Authors:  Gwen L Alexander; George W Divine; Mick P Couper; Jennifer B McClure; Melanie A Stopponi; Kristine K Fortman; Dennis D Tolsma; Victor J Strecher; Christine Cole Johnson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Blood spots as an alternative to whole blood collection and the effect of a small monetary incentive to increase participation in genetic association studies.

Authors:  Parveen Bhatti; Diane Kampa; Bruce H Alexander; Christopher McClure; Danny Ringer; Michele M Doody; Alice J Sigurdson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Authors:  Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.