Literature DB >> 21691841

The cost-effectiveness of cash versus lottery incentives for a web-based, stated-preference community survey.

Aleksandra Gajic1, David Cameron, Jeremiah Hurley.   

Abstract

We present the results of a randomized experiment to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of response incentives for a stated-preference survey of a general community population. The survey was administered using a mixed-mode approach, in which community members were invited to participate using a traditional mailed letter using contact information for a representative sample of the community; but individuals completed the survey via the web, which exploited the advantages of electronic capture. Individuals were randomized to four incentive groups: (a) no incentive, (b) prepaid cash incentive ($2), (c) a low lottery (10 prizes of $25) and (d) a high lottery (2 prizes of $250). Letters of invitation were mailed to 3,000 individuals. In total, 405 individuals (14.4%) contacted the website and 277 (9.8%) provided complete responses. The prepaid cash incentive generated the highest contact and response rates (23.3 and 17.3%, respectively), and no incentive generated the lowest (9.1 and 5.7%, respectively). The high lottery, however, was the most cost-effective incentive for obtaining completed surveys: compared with no incentive, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per completed survey for high lottery was $13.89; for prepaid cash, the ICER was $18.29. This finding suggests that the preferred response incentive for community-based, stated-preference surveys is a lottery with a small number of large prizes.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21691841     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0332-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  4 in total

1.  The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines?

Authors:  R D Smith
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  The effects of cash and lottery incentives on mailed surveys to physicians: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Gabriel M Leung; Lai Ming Ho; Moon Fai Chan; Janice M M Johnston; Fung Kam Wong
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects.

Authors:  Paul Dolan; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2005-01-23       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues.

Authors:  E Nord; J Richardson; A Street; H Kuhse; P Singer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 4.634

  4 in total
  9 in total

Review 1.  Response rate differences between web and alternative data collection methods for public health research: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Cauane Blumenberg; Aluísio J D Barros
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.380

2.  Promised and Lottery Airtime Incentives to Improve Interactive Voice Response Survey Participation Among Adults in Bangladesh and Uganda: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Dustin Garrett Gibson; Gulam Muhammed Al Kibria; George William Pariyo; Saifuddin Ahmed; Joseph Ali; Alain Bernard Labrique; Iqbal Ansary Khan; Elizeus Rutebemberwa; Meerjady Sabrina Flora; Adnan Ali Hyder
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 7.076

3.  Challenges and solutions for using informatics in research.

Authors:  Catherine J Ryan; Heeseung Choi; Cynthia Fritschi; Patricia E Hershberger; Catherine V Vincent; Eileen Danaher Hacker; Julie J Zerwic; Kathleen Norr; Hanjong Park; Sevinc Tastan; Gail M Keenan; Lorna Finnegan; Zhongsheng Zhao; Agatha M Gallo; Diana J Wilkie
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 1.967

4.  Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches.

Authors:  Martha Sinclair; Joanne O'Toole; Manori Malawaraarachchi; Karin Leder
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Reaching Those At Risk for Psychiatric Disorders and Suicidal Ideation: Facebook Advertisements to Recruit Military Veterans.

Authors:  Alan R Teo; Samuel Bl Liebow; Benjamin Chan; Steven K Dobscha; Amanda L Graham
Journal:  JMIR Ment Health       Date:  2018-07-05

6.  Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yee Tak Derek Cheung; Xue Weng; Man Ping Wang; Sai Yin Ho; Antonio Cho Shing Kwong; Vienna Wai Yin Lai; Tai Hing Lam
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-07-04       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Unit Response and Costs in Web Versus Face-To-Face Data Collection: Comparison of Two Cross-sectional Health Surveys.

Authors:  Elise Braekman; Stefaan Demarest; Rana Charafeddine; Sabine Drieskens; Finaba Berete; Lydia Gisle; Johan Van der Heyden; Guido Van Hal
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  A photograph of the researcher on the invitation letter did not affect the participation rate of a postal survey: a randomized study within a trial (SWAT).

Authors:  Barbara Prediger; Nadja Könsgen; Ana-Mihaela Bora; Anna Schlimbach; Dawid Pieper
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 4.612

9.  Population-Based Survey Methods for Reaching Adolescent and Young Adult Survivors of Pediatric Cancer and Their Parents.

Authors:  Ann S Hamilton; Xueyan Zhuang; Denise Modjeski; Rhona Slaughter; Anamara Ritt-Olson; Joel Milam
Journal:  J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol       Date:  2018-09-15       Impact factor: 1.757

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.