Literature DB >> 16234429

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of monetary incentives and response to mailed questionnaires.

Phil Edwards1, Rachel Cooper, Ian Roberts, Chris Frost.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the increase in mailed questionnaire response attributable to a monetary incentive.
DESIGN: A systematic search for randomised controlled trials of monetary incentives and mailed questionnaire response was conducted. For each trial identified, logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio for response per 0.01 dollars incentive increase. Odds ratios were pooled in a series of random effect meta-analyses stratified by the minimum and maximum amounts offered. Piecewise logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio for response per $0.01 increase given in each of five incentive ranges.
SETTING: Populations in several developed countries, predominantly the USA. PARTICIPANTS: 85,671 randomised participants from 88 trials. MAIN
RESULTS: The pooled odds ratios for response per 0.01 dollars incentive decreased monotonically as the maximum amount of incentive offered increased. The piecewise logistic regression model estimated that for incentive amounts up to 0.50 dollars, each additional 0.01 dollars increased the odds of response by about 1% (pooled OR = 1.012, 95%CI 1.007 to 1.016). The effects on response above 0.50 dollars were smaller and decreased monotonically in the ranges: 0.50-0.99 dollars, 1-1.99 dollars, 2-4.99 dollars, 5.00 dollars and over, but remained statistically significant up to 5 dollars.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of the best available evidence shows that monetary incentives increase mailed questionnaire response. Researchers should include small amounts of money with mailed questionnaires rather than give no incentive at all.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16234429      PMCID: PMC1732953          DOI: 10.1136/jech.2005.034397

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  6 in total

Review 1.  Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review.

Authors:  Phil Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike Clarke; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Sarah Pratap; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-05-18

2.  Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records.

Authors:  Phil Edwards; Mike Clarke; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Sarah Pratap; Ian Roberts; Reinhard Wentz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

Authors:  M Egger; G Davey Smith; M Schneider; C Minder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13

4.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

5.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses?

Authors:  M J Clarke; L A Stewart
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-10-15
  6 in total
  41 in total

1.  Impact of participant incentives and direct and snowball sampling on survey response rate in an ethnically diverse community: results from a pilot study of physical activity and the built environment.

Authors:  Daniel F Perez; Jason X Nie; Chris I Ardern; Natasha Radhu; Paul Ritvo
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2013-02

2.  Understanding the attitudes of Latino parents toward confidential health services for teens.

Authors:  Kathleen Tebb; Liz Karime Hernandez; Mary-Ann Shafer; Fay Chang; Stephen L Eyre; Regina Otero-Sabogal
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2012-02-04       Impact factor: 5.012

3.  Strategies for achieving a high response rate in a home interview survey.

Authors:  Kirsty Kiezebrink; Iain K Crombie; Linda Irvine; Vivien Swanson; Kevin Power; Wendy L Wrieden; Peter W Slane
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Response rates to a mailed survey of a representative sample of cancer patients randomly drawn from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry: a randomized trial of incentive and length effects.

Authors:  Bridget J Kelly; Taressa K Fraze; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  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

6.  Retaining young people in a longitudinal sexual health survey: a trial of strategies to maintain participation.

Authors:  Marion Henderson; Daniel Wight; Catherine Nixon; Graham Hart
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  The role of cosmetologists as health promoters in the prevention of infant mortality.

Authors:  Carolyn R Ahlers-Schmidt; Michelle L Redmond; Gretchen Struemph; John Hunninghake; Joy Nimeskern
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2014-04

8.  Effectiveness of strategies to encourage general practitioners to accept an offer of free access to online evidence-based information: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Heather Buchan; Emma Lourey; Catherine D'Este; Rob Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 9.  Questionnaires in clinical trials: guidelines for optimal design and administration.

Authors:  Phil Edwards
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? The MINT incentive study.

Authors:  Simon Gates; Mark A Williams; Emma Withers; Esther Williamson; Shahrul Mt-Isa; Sarah E Lamb
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-06-22       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.