Literature DB >> 20157845

Can incentives undermine intrinsic motivation to participate in epidemiologic surveys?

Marika Wenemark1, Asa Vernby, Annika Lindahl Norberg.   

Abstract

Response rates to surveys are decreasing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of lottery tickets as incentives in an epidemiologic control group. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to parents in the municipality of Stockholm, Sweden, who were to be used as a control group in a study addressing stress in parents of children with cancer. A stratified random sample of 450 parents were randomized into three incentive groups: (a) no incentive; (b) a promised incentive of one lottery ticket to be received upon reply; (c) a promised incentive of one lottery ticket to be received upon reply and an additional lottery ticket upon reply within 1 week. The overall response rate across the three groups was 65.3%. The response rate was highest in the no incentive group (69.3%) and lowest in the one plus one lottery ticket group (62.0%). In a survival analysis, the difference between the two response curves was significant by the log-rank test (P = 0.04), with the no incentive group having a shorter time to response than the incentive group. Our findings suggest that the use of lottery tickets as incentives to increase participation in a mail questionnaire among parents may be less valuable or even harmful. Incentives may undermine motivation in studies in which the intrinsic motivation of the respondents is already high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20157845     DOI: 10.1007/s10654-010-9434-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  18 in total

1.  The effect on response rates of offering a small incentive with a mailed questionnaire.

Authors:  L D Marrett; N Kreiger; L Dodds; S Hilditch
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.797

2.  Does it pay to pay? A randomized trial of prepaid financial incentives and lottery incentives in surveys of nonphysician healthcare professionals.

Authors:  Connie M Ulrich; Marion Danis; Deloris Koziol; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Ryan Hubbard; Christine Grady
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates.

Authors:  Jane Robertson; Emily J Walkom; Patricia McGettigan
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.890

4.  Commentary: methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires.

Authors:  Elaine McColl
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 7.196

5.  Effect of participation incentives on the composition of national health surveys.

Authors:  Anne Moyer; Margaret Brown
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2008-10

6.  Lottery incentives did not improve response rate to a mailed survey: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ian A Harris; Oliver K Khoo; Jane M Young; Michael J Solomon; Hamish Rae
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  25-year trends and socio-demographic differences in response rates: Finnish adult health behaviour survey.

Authors:  Hanna Tolonen; Satu Helakorpi; Kirsi Talala; Ville Helasoja; Tuija Martelin; Ritva Prättälä
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-06-28       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  A global measure of perceived stress.

Authors:  S Cohen; T Kamarck; R Mermelstein
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1983-12

9.  Response and non-response to postal questionnaire follow-up in a clinical trial--a qualitative study of the patient's perspective.

Authors:  Rachel A Nakash; Jane L Hutton; Sarah E Lamb; Simon Gates; Joanne Fisher
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2007-12-13       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  Do low control response rates always affect the findings? Assessments of smoking and obesity in two Australian case-control studies of cancer.

Authors:  Nirmala Pandeya; Gail M Williams; Adèle C Green; Penelope M Webb; David C Whiteman
Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.939

View more
  4 in total

1.  The Rotterdam Study: 2012 objectives and design update.

Authors:  Albert Hofman; Cornelia M van Duijn; Oscar H Franco; M Arfan Ikram; Harry L A Janssen; Caroline C W Klaver; Ernst J Kuipers; Tamar E C Nijsten; Bruno H Ch Stricker; Henning Tiemeier; André G Uitterlinden; Meike W Vernooij; Jacqueline C M Witteman
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Recovery, work-life balance and work experiences important to self-rated health: A questionnaire study on salutogenic work factors among Swedish primary health care employees.

Authors:  Lina Ejlertsson; Bodil Heijbel; Göran Ejlertsson; Ingemar Andersson
Journal:  Work       Date:  2018

3.  Increasing participation in a vector control campaign: a cluster randomised controlled evaluation of behavioural economic interventions in Peru.

Authors:  Alison M Buttenheim; Valerie A Paz-Soldán; Ricardo Castillo-Neyra; Amparo M Toledo Vizcarra; Katty Borrini-Mayori; Molly McGuire; Claudia Arevalo-Nieto; Kevin G Volpp; Dylan S Small; Jere R Behrman; Cesar Naquira-Verlarde; Michael Z Levy
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2018-09-21

4.  The use of incentives in vulnerable populations for a telephone survey: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Megan Knoll; Lianne Soller; Moshe Ben-Shoshan; Daniel Harrington; Joey Fragapane; Lawrence Joseph; Sebastien La Vieille; Yvan St-Pierre; Kathi Wilson; Susan Elliott; Ann Clarke
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-10-19
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.