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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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