Literature DB >> 15485729

Prepayment was superior to postpayment cash incentives in a randomized postal survey among physicians.

Gabriel M Leung1, Janice M Johnston, Hnin Saing, Keith Y K Tin, Irene O L Wong, Lai-Ming Ho.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Improving response rates, particularly among physicians, is important to minimize nonresponder bias and increase the effective sample size in epidemiologic research. We conducted a randomized trial to examine the impact of prepayment vs. postpayment incentives on response rates. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Self-completion postal questionnaires were mailed to 949 physicians who were respondents to an earlier survey and representative of the general physician population in Hong Kong. These physicians were randomly allocated to receive a HK dollar 20 cash prepayment incentive that accompanied the survey (n=474) or a postpayment reward of the same amount on receipt of the completed questionnaire (n=475).
RESULTS: The final prepayment response rate was 82.9%, compared with 72.5% in the postpayment arm (P < .001). Of the eight alternative incentive and follow-up strategies evaluated, three lie on the efficiency frontier (i.e., not dominated), including postpayment with three mailings at HK dollar 42.7, prepayment with three mailings at HK dollar 66.5 and prepayment with three mailings and telephone follow-up at HK dollar 112.1 per responder recruited (US dollar 1=HK dollar 7.8).
CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that prepayment cash incentives are superior to postpayment of the equivalent amount in improving response rates among a representative sample of Hong Kong physicians. Further research should concentrate on confirming the generalizability of these findings in other health care occupation groups and settings.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15485729     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Achieving a high response rate with a health care provider survey, Washington State, 2006.

Authors:  Nguyet Tran; Julia A Dilley
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 2.830

4.  Predictors of Response Outcomes for Research Recruitment Through a Central Cancer Registry: Evidence From 17 Recruitment Efforts for Population-Based Studies.

Authors:  Morgan M Millar; Anita Y Kinney; Nicola J Camp; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Mia Hashibe; David F Penson; Anne C Kirchhoff; Deborah W Neklason; Alicia W Gilsenan; Gretchen S Dieck; Antoinette M Stroup; Sandra L Edwards; Carrie Bateman; Marjorie E Carter; Carol Sweeney
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 5.  Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey.

Authors:  Y Martins; R I Lederman; C L Lowenstein; S Joffe; B A Neville; B T Hastings; G A Abel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey.

Authors:  Jane S Chen; Brian L Sprague; Carrie N Klabunde; Anna N A Tosteson; Asaf Bitton; Tracy Onega; Charles D MacLean; Kimberly Harris; Marilyn M Schapira; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 7.  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

8.  Utilizing SEER Cancer Registries for Population-Based Cancer Survivor Epidemiologic Studies: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Lisa Gallicchio; Joanne W Elena; Sarah Fagan; Marjorie Carter; Ann S Hamilton; Theresa A Hastert; Lisa L Hunter; Jie Li; Charles F Lynch; Joel Milam; Morgan M Millar; Denise Modjeski; Lisa E Paddock; Amanda R Reed; Lisa B Moses; Antoinette M Stroup; Carol Sweeney; Edward J Trapido; Michele M West; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Kathy J Helzlsouer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Allowing Physicians to Choose the Value of Compensation for Participation in a Web-Based Survey: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Alison E Turnbull; Cristi L O'Connor; Bryan Lau; Scott D Halpern; Dale M Needham
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  The effect of a monetary incentive for administrative assistants on the survey response rate: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Arnav Agarwal; Dany Raad; Victor Kairouz; John Fudyma; Anne B Curtis; Holger J Schünemann; Elie A Akl
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.