Literature DB >> 24183608

"Bird in the hand" cash was more effective than prize draws in increasing physician questionnaire response.

Frances J Drummond1, Eamonn O'Leary2, Ciaran O'Neill3, Richeal Burns3, Linda Sharp2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of two monetary incentives on response rates to postal questionnaires from primary care physicians (PCPs). STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: The PCPs were randomized into three arms (n=550 per arm), namely (1) €5 sent with the questionnaire (cash); (2) entry into a draw on return of completed questionnaire (prize); or (3) no incentive. Effects of incentives on response rates and item nonresponse were examined, as was cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS: Response rates were significantly higher in the cash (66.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.9, 70.4%) and prize arms (44.8%; 95% CI: 40.1, 49.3%) compared with the no-incentive arm (39.9%; 95% CI: 35.4, 44.3%). Adjusted relative risk of response was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.35) and 1.68 (95% CI: 1.48, 1.91) in the prize and cash arms, respectively, compared with the no-incentive group. Costs per completed questionnaire were €9.85, €11.15, and €6.31 for the cash, prize, and no-incentive arms, respectively. Compared with the no-incentive arm, costs per additional questionnaire returned in the cash and prize arms were €14.72 and €37.20, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Both a modest cash incentive and entry into a prize draw were effective in increasing response rates. The cash incentive was most effective and the most cost-effective. Where it is important to maximize response, a modest cash incentive may be cost-effective.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Cash; Draw; Monetary incentives; Physicians; Postal questionnaire; Primary care'

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24183608     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  4 in total

1.  Comparing the costs of three prostate cancer follow-up strategies: a cost minimisation analysis.

Authors:  Alison M Pearce; Fay Ryan; Frances J Drummond; Audrey Alforque Thomas; Aileen Timmons; Linda Sharp
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: the Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study.

Authors:  F J Drummond; H Kinnear; C Donnelly; E O'Leary; K O'Brien; R M Burns; A Gavin; L Sharp
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  What impact do questionnaire length and monetary incentives have on mailed health psychology survey response?

Authors:  Kathryn A Robb; Lauren Gatting; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2017-04-19

4.  A comparison, for older people with diabetes, of health and health care utilisation in two different health systems on the island of Ireland.

Authors:  Tom Pierse; Luke Barry; Liam Glynn; Andrew W Murphy; Sharon Cruise; Ciaran O'Neill
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 3.295

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.