BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend towards lower participation in questionnaire surveys. This reduces representativeness, increases costs and introduces particular challenges to longitudinal surveys, as researchers have to use complex statistical techniques which attempt to address attrition. This paper describes a trial of incentives to retain longitudinal survey cohorts from ages 16 to 20, to question them on the sensitive topic of sexual health. METHODS: A longitudinal survey was conducted with 8,430 eligible pupils from two sequential year groups from 25 Scottish schools. Wave 1 (14 years) and Wave 2 (16 years) were conducted largely within schools. For Wave 3 (18 years), when everyone had left school, the sample was split into 4 groups that were balanced across predictors of survey participation: 1) no incentive; 2) chance of winning one of twenty-five vouchers worth 20 pounds; 3) chance of winning one 500 pounds voucher; 4) a definite reward of a 10 pounds voucher sent on receipt of their completed questionnaire. Outcomes were participation at Wave 3 and two years later at Wave 4. Analysis used logistic regression and adjusted for clustering at school level. RESULTS: The only condition that had a significant and beneficial impact for pupils was to offer a definite reward for participation (Group 4). Forty-one percent of Group 4 participated in Wave 3 versus 27% or less for Groups 1 to 3. At Wave 4, 35% of Group 4 took part versus 25% or less for the other groups. Similarly, 22% of Group 4 participated in all four Waves of the longitudinal study, whereas for the other three groups it was 16% or less that participated in full. CONCLUSIONS: The best strategy for retaining all groups of pupils and one that improved retention at both age 18 and age 20 was to offer a definite reward for participation. This is expensive, however, given the many benefits of retaining a longitudinal sample, we recommend inclusion of this as a research cost for cohort and other repeat-contact studies.
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend towards lower participation in questionnaire surveys. This reduces representativeness, increases costs and introduces particular challenges to longitudinal surveys, as researchers have to use complex statistical techniques which attempt to address attrition. This paper describes a trial of incentives to retain longitudinal survey cohorts from ages 16 to 20, to question them on the sensitive topic of sexual health. METHODS: A longitudinal survey was conducted with 8,430 eligible pupils from two sequential year groups from 25 Scottish schools. Wave 1 (14 years) and Wave 2 (16 years) were conducted largely within schools. For Wave 3 (18 years), when everyone had left school, the sample was split into 4 groups that were balanced across predictors of survey participation: 1) no incentive; 2) chance of winning one of twenty-five vouchers worth 20 pounds; 3) chance of winning one 500 pounds voucher; 4) a definite reward of a 10 pounds voucher sent on receipt of their completed questionnaire. Outcomes were participation at Wave 3 and two years later at Wave 4. Analysis used logistic regression and adjusted for clustering at school level. RESULTS: The only condition that had a significant and beneficial impact for pupils was to offer a definite reward for participation (Group 4). Forty-one percent of Group 4 participated in Wave 3 versus 27% or less for Groups 1 to 3. At Wave 4, 35% of Group 4 took part versus 25% or less for the other groups. Similarly, 22% of Group 4 participated in all four Waves of the longitudinal study, whereas for the other three groups it was 16% or less that participated in full. CONCLUSIONS: The best strategy for retaining all groups of pupils and one that improved retention at both age 18 and age 20 was to offer a definite reward for participation. This is expensive, however, given the many benefits of retaining a longitudinal sample, we recommend inclusion of this as a research cost for cohort and other repeat-contact studies.
Authors: Tiah L Dowell; Allison M Waters; Wayne Usher; Lara J Farrell; Caroline L Donovan; Kathryn L Modecki; Melanie J Zimmer-Gembeck; Mike Castle; James Hinchey Journal: Child Psychiatry Hum Dev Date: 2021-02
Authors: Joseph Dias; Stephen Brealey; Liz Cook; Caroline Fairhurst; Sebastian Hinde; Paul Leighton; Surabhi Choudhary; Matthew Costa; Catherine Hewitt; Stephen Hodgson; Laura Jefferson; Kanagaratnam Jeyapalan; Ada Keding; Matthew Northgraves; Jared Palmer; Amar Rangan; Gerry Richardson; Nicholas Taub; Garry Tew; John Thompson; David Torgerson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Julia V Bailey; Menelaos Pavlou; Andrew Copas; Ona McCarthy; Ken Carswell; Greta Rait; Graham Hart; Irwin Nazareth; Caroline Free; Rebecca French; Elizabeth Murray Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Katie Gillies; Anna Kearney; Ciara Keenan; Shaun Treweek; Jemma Hudson; Valerie C Brueton; Thomas Conway; Andrew Hunter; Louise Murphy; Peter J Carr; Greta Rait; Paul Manson; Magaly Aceves-Martins Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-06
Authors: Paul Teedon; Karen S Galea; Laura MacCalman; Kate Jones; John Cocker; John W Cherrie; Martie van Tongeren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Allan F Colver; Hannah Merrick; Mark Deverill; Ann Le Couteur; Jeremy Parr; Mark S Pearce; Tim Rapley; Luke Vale; Rose Watson; Helen McConachie Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 3.295