Jonathan B Vangeest1, Timothy P Johnson. 1. College of Public Health, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242-0001, USA. jvangees@kent.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surveys of cancer patients are an important means of collecting data necessary to improve cancer prevention and control. However, health surveys generally are characterized by declining response rates, with incentives often employed to encourage participation. While successful, magnitude of effect is partially dependent upon situational characteristics of respondents, including health status. Given the health challenges experienced by cancer patients, it is unclear to what extent incentives can improve survey participation. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of monetary and non-monetary incentives in improving response to cancer patient surveys. METHODS: We reviewed the available experimental literature regarding efforts to improve response rates among cancer patients/survivors via incentives. Relevant studies were identified through searches of the MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases from 1975 to 2012. Seed sources (e.g., Cancer Causes & Control, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, and BMC Medical Research Methodology) were also referenced extensively in order to establish a comprehensive set of studies. RESULTS: Although limited, evidence does suggest that token incentives may be less effective for improving survey participation among cancer patients, relative to other population groups. These results are contrary to well-established evidence regarding the efficacy of incentives in improving survey participation generally. Potential reasons why incentives may be less effective in this population are explored. CONCLUSIONS: While more research is necessary, results suggest that survey research strategies targeting cancer patients be purposively designed in a manner that gives consideration to the distress associated with the condition, including selection of alternative strategies to improve response.
PURPOSE: Surveys of cancerpatients are an important means of collecting data necessary to improve cancer prevention and control. However, health surveys generally are characterized by declining response rates, with incentives often employed to encourage participation. While successful, magnitude of effect is partially dependent upon situational characteristics of respondents, including health status. Given the health challenges experienced by cancerpatients, it is unclear to what extent incentives can improve survey participation. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of monetary and non-monetary incentives in improving response to cancerpatient surveys. METHODS: We reviewed the available experimental literature regarding efforts to improve response rates among cancerpatients/survivors via incentives. Relevant studies were identified through searches of the MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases from 1975 to 2012. Seed sources (e.g., Cancer Causes & Control, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, and BMC Medical Research Methodology) were also referenced extensively in order to establish a comprehensive set of studies. RESULTS: Although limited, evidence does suggest that token incentives may be less effective for improving survey participation among cancerpatients, relative to other population groups. These results are contrary to well-established evidence regarding the efficacy of incentives in improving survey participation generally. Potential reasons why incentives may be less effective in this population are explored. CONCLUSIONS: While more research is necessary, results suggest that survey research strategies targeting cancerpatients be purposively designed in a manner that gives consideration to the distress associated with the condition, including selection of alternative strategies to improve response.
Authors: Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; David Riedl; Gerhard Rumpold; Alain Nickels; Thomas Licht; Bernhard Holzner Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Laura Ashley; Helen Jones; James Thomas; Alex Newsham; Amy Downing; Eva Morris; Julia Brown; Galina Velikova; David Forman; Penny Wright Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 5.428