Literature DB >> 31135552

Small Social Incentives Did Not Improve the Survey Response Rate of Patients Who Underwent Orthopaedic Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

Hunter Warwick1, Carolyn Hutyra, Cary Politzer, Andrew Francis, Thomas Risoli, Cynthia Green, Nikhil Verma, Scott Huettel, Richard C Mather.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The generalizability of data derived from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) depends largely on the proportion of the relevant population that completes PROM surveys. However, PROM survey responses remain low, despite efforts to increase participation. Social incentives, such as the offer to make a charitable donation on behalf of the survey respondent, have generally not been effective where online surveys are concerned, but this has not been extensively tested in medicine. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do personalized social incentives increase response rates or response completeness for postoperative PROM surveys in an orthopaedic population? (2) Are there demographic factors associated with response and nonresponse to postoperative PROM surveys? (3) Are some demographic factors associated with increased response to social incentive offers?
METHODS: Participants were selected from an institutional orthopaedics database. Patients were older than 18 years, had an email address on file, and had undergone one of the following procedures 1 to 2 years ago: Achilles tendon repair, ACL reconstruction, meniscectomy, hip arthroscopy, TKA, or THA. Of 4685 eligible patients, 3000 (64%) were randomly selected for inclusion in the study. Participants were randomized to one of four groups: (1) control: no incentive (n = 750); (2) patient donation: offer of a USD 5 donation to provide medical supplies to a pediatric orthopaedic patient (n = 751); (3) research donation: offer of a USD 5 donation to a procedure-specific research program (n = 749); or (4) explanation: explanation that response supports quality improvement (n = 750). The four groups did not differ regarding patient age, gender, race, procedure type, or time since procedure. All patients were sent an email invitation with the same PROM survey link. The proportion of patients who responded (defined here as the response rate) was measured at 4 weeks and compared between intervention groups. We used a logistic regression analysis to identify demographic factors associated with response while controlling for confounding variables and performed subgroup analyses to determine any demographic factors associated with increased response to social incentives.
RESULTS: There was no difference in the overall response rate (research donation: 49% [353 of 725], patient donation: 45% [333 of 734], control: 45% [322 of 723], explanation: 44% [314 of 719]; p = 0.239) or response completeness (research donation: 89% [315 of 353], patient donation: 90% [301 of 333], control: 89% [287 of 322], explanation: 87% [274 of 314]; p = 0.647) between the four groups. Women (odds ratio [OR], 1.175; p = 0.042), older patients (< 58 years: OR, 1.016 per 1-year increase; p = 0.001; 58-64 years: OR, 1.023 per 1-year increase; p < 0.001; > 64 years: OR, 1.021 per 1-year increase; p < 0.001), and white patients (OR 2.034 compared with black patients, p < 0.001) were slightly more likely to respond, after controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, age, race, and procedure type. In subgroup analyses, men (research donation: 49% [155 of 316], patient donation: 45% [146 of 328], control: 40% [130 of 325], explanation: 39% [127 of 325]; p = 0.041) and patients younger than 58 years (research donation: 40% [140 of 351], control: 35% [130 of 371], patient donation: 32% [113 of 357], explanation: 27% [93 of 340]; p = 0.004) were slightly more likely to respond to the research donation than those with other interventions were.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite small effects in specific subgroups, personalized social incentives did not increase the overall response to postoperative orthopaedic surveys. Novel and targeted strategies will be necessary to reach response thresholds that enable healthcare stakeholders to use PROMs effectively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31135552      PMCID: PMC6999991          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000732

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  30 in total

1.  Will donations to their learned college increase surgeons' participation in surveys? A randomized trial.

Authors:  M Gattellari; J E Ward
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Incentives increased return rates but did not influence partial nonresponse or treatment outcome in a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jörg Dirmaier; Timo Harfst; Uwe Koch; Holger Schulz
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-23       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Ross; A Grant; C Counsell; W Gillespie; I Russell; R Prescott
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; David Artz; Dorothy Dulko; Kevin Scher; Paul Sabbatini; Martee Hensley; Nandita Mitra; John Speakman; Mary McCabe; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-05-20       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; Alexia Iasonos; Allison Barz; Ann Culkin; Mark G Kris; David Artz; Paul Fearn; John Speakman; Rena Farquhar; Howard I Scher; Mary McCabe; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Predicting and Preventing Loss to Follow-up of Adult Trauma Patients in Randomized Controlled Trials: An Example from the FLOW Trial.

Authors:  Kim Madden; Taryn Scott; Paula McKay; Brad A Petrisor; Kyle J Jeray; Stephanie L Tanner; Mohit Bhandari; Sheila Sprague
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Improving response rates using a monetary incentive for patient completion of questionnaires: an observational study.

Authors:  Stephen D Brealey; Christine Atwell; Stirling Bryan; Simon Coulton; Helen Cox; Ben Cross; Fiona Fylan; Andrew Garratt; Fiona J Gilbert; Maureen G C Gillan; Maggie Hendry; Kerenza Hood; Helen Houston; David King; Veronica Morton; Jo Orchard; Michael Robling; Ian T Russell; David Torgerson; Valerie Wadsworth; Clare Wilkinson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: a cohort survey.

Authors:  Michele Peters; Helen Crocker; Crispin Jenkinson; Helen Doll; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? The MINT incentive study.

Authors:  Simon Gates; Mark A Williams; Emma Withers; Esther Williamson; Shahrul Mt-Isa; Sarah E Lamb
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-06-22       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Web-based versus traditional paper questionnaires: a mixed-mode survey with a Nordic perspective.

Authors:  Lena Hohwü; Heidi Lyshol; Mika Gissler; Stefan Hrafn Jonsson; Max Petzold; Carsten Obel
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  2 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Small Social Incentives Did Not Improve the Survey Response Rate of Patients Who Underwent Orthopaedic Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Mitesh S Patel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.

Authors:  Shelley S Tworoger; Brian D Gonzalez; Cassandra A Hathaway; Melody N Chavez; Mika Kadono; Dana Ketcher; Dana E Rollison; Erin M Siegel; Anita R Peoples; Cornelia M Ulrich; Frank J Penedo
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2021-08-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.