Michael C David1, Robert S Ware2. 1. School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston 4006, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: michael.david@uqconnect.edu.au. 2. School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston 4006, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess incentive effectiveness on response to electronic health surveys. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed from 1970 to March 2013. Two authors independently selected the trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Original authors were contacted for the missing information. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded nine trials (including 29,463 participants in total) that met eligibility criteria. For each of the incentive strategies examined, a random-effects model was used because of significant heterogeneity, and results were summarized as pooled odds ratios (ORs). Compared with no incentive, the offer of an incentive was seen to have a beneficial effect on response (OR, 1.48; 95% CI: 1.29, 1.71). Specifically, the odds of response were more than doubled when a monetary incentive was used (OR, 2.43; 95% CI: 1.60, 3.69) and increased when nonmonetary incentives were used (OR, 1.33; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.51). CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that health researchers using electronic surveys can improve the quality of their research by offering incentives to potential participants.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess incentive effectiveness on response to electronic health surveys. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed from 1970 to March 2013. Two authors independently selected the trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Original authors were contacted for the missing information. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded nine trials (including 29,463 participants in total) that met eligibility criteria. For each of the incentive strategies examined, a random-effects model was used because of significant heterogeneity, and results were summarized as pooled odds ratios (ORs). Compared with no incentive, the offer of an incentive was seen to have a beneficial effect on response (OR, 1.48; 95% CI: 1.29, 1.71). Specifically, the odds of response were more than doubled when a monetary incentive was used (OR, 2.43; 95% CI: 1.60, 3.69) and increased when nonmonetary incentives were used (OR, 1.33; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.51). CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that health researchers using electronic surveys can improve the quality of their research by offering incentives to potential participants.
Authors: Fiona Lobban; Nadia Akers; Duncan Appelbe; Rossella Iraci Capuccinello; Lesley Chapman; Lizzi Collinge; Susanna Dodd; Sue Flowers; Bruce Hollingsworth; Mahsa Honary; Sonia Johnson; Steven H Jones; Ceu Mateus; Barbara Mezes; Elizabeth Murray; Katerina Panagaki; Naomi Rainford; Heather Robinson; Anna Rosala-Hallas; William Sellwood; Andrew Walker; Paula R Williamson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Karen A Robinson; Victor D Dinglas; Vineeth Sukrithan; Ramakrishna Yalamanchilli; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb; Dale M Needham Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Cauane Blumenberg; Ana Maria Baptista Menezes; Helen Gonçalves; Maria Cecília Formoso Assunção; Fernando César Wehrmeister; Aluísio J D Barros Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Fiona Lobban; Heather Robinson; Duncan Appelbe; Johanna Barraclough; Emma Bedson; Lizzi Collinge; Susanna Dodd; Sue Flowers; Mahsa Honary; Sonia Johnson; Ceu Mateus; Barbara Mezes; Valerie Minns; Elizabeth Murray; Andrew Walker; Paula Williamson; Catherine Wintermeyer; Steven Jones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 2.692