Ben Young1, Laura Bedford1, Roshan das Nair2, Stephanie Gallant3, Roberta Littleford3, John F R Robertson4, Stuart Schembri5, Frank M Sullivan6, Kavita Vedhara1, Denise Kendrick1. 1. Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 3. Tayside Clinical Trials Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. 4. Division of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK. 5. Respiratory Department, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK. 6. School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: High response rates to research questionnaires can help to ensure results are more representative of the population studied and provide increased statistical power, on which the study may have been predicated. Improving speed and quality of response can reduce costs. METHOD: We conducted a randomized study within a trial (SWAT) to assess questionnaire response rates, reminders sent, and data completeness with unconditional compared with conditional monetary incentives. Eligible individuals were mailed a series of psychological questionnaires as a follow-up to a baseline host trial questionnaire. Half received a £5 gift voucher with questionnaires (unconditional), and half were promised the voucher after returning questionnaires (conditional). RESULTS: Of 1079 individuals, response rates to the first follow-up questionnaire were 94.2% and 91.7% in the unconditional and conditional monetary incentive groups, respectively (OR 1.78; 95% CI, 0.85-3.72). There were significantly greater odds of returning repeat questionnaires in the unconditional group at 6 months (OR 2.97; 95% CI, 1.01-8.71; .047) but not at 12 months (OR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.44-2.85). Incentive condition had no impact at any time point on the proportion of sent questionnaires that needed reminders. Odds of incomplete questionnaires were significantly greater at 3 months in the unconditional compared with the conditional incentive group (OR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.32-4.55; .004). CONCLUSIONS: Unconditional monetary incentives can produce a transitory greater likelihood of mailed questionnaire response in a clinical trial participant group, consistent with the direction of effect in other settings. However, this could have been a chance finding. The use of multiple strategies to promote response may have created a ceiling effect. This strategy has potential to reduce administrative and postage costs, weighed against the cost of incentives used, but could risk compromising the completeness of data.
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: High response rates to research questionnaires can help to ensure results are more representative of the population studied and provide increased statistical power, on which the study may have been predicated. Improving speed and quality of response can reduce costs. METHOD: We conducted a randomized study within a trial (SWAT) to assess questionnaire response rates, reminders sent, and data completeness with unconditional compared with conditional monetary incentives. Eligible individuals were mailed a series of psychological questionnaires as a follow-up to a baseline host trial questionnaire. Half received a £5 gift voucher with questionnaires (unconditional), and half were promised the voucher after returning questionnaires (conditional). RESULTS: Of 1079 individuals, response rates to the first follow-up questionnaire were 94.2% and 91.7% in the unconditional and conditional monetary incentive groups, respectively (OR 1.78; 95% CI, 0.85-3.72). There were significantly greater odds of returning repeat questionnaires in the unconditional group at 6 months (OR 2.97; 95% CI, 1.01-8.71; .047) but not at 12 months (OR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.44-2.85). Incentive condition had no impact at any time point on the proportion of sent questionnaires that needed reminders. Odds of incomplete questionnaires were significantly greater at 3 months in the unconditional compared with the conditional incentive group (OR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.32-4.55; .004). CONCLUSIONS: Unconditional monetary incentives can produce a transitory greater likelihood of mailed questionnaire response in a clinical trial participant group, consistent with the direction of effect in other settings. However, this could have been a chance finding. The use of multiple strategies to promote response may have created a ceiling effect. This strategy has potential to reduce administrative and postage costs, weighed against the cost of incentives used, but could risk compromising the completeness of data.
Authors: E Wangeci Kagucia; Benard Ochieng; Joyce Were; Kyla Hayford; David Obor; Katherine L O'Brien; Dustin G Gibson Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2021-01
Authors: Morgan M Millar; Lenora M Olson; John M VanBuren; Rachel Richards; Murray M Pollack; Richard Holubkov; Robert A Berg; Joseph A Carcillo; Patrick S McQuillen; Kathleen L Meert; Peter M Mourani; Randall S Burd Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 4.612
Authors: Megan McIntosh; Melissa J Opozda; Michael O'Callaghan; Andrew D Vincent; Daniel A Galvão; Camille E Short Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 4.612
Authors: Katie Gillies; Anna Kearney; Ciara Keenan; Shaun Treweek; Jemma Hudson; Valerie C Brueton; Thomas Conway; Andrew Hunter; Louise Murphy; Peter J Carr; Greta Rait; Paul Manson; Magaly Aceves-Martins Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-06
Authors: Lucy E Bradshaw; Alan A Montgomery; Hywel C Williams; Joanne R Chalmers; Rachel H Haines Journal: Trials Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 2.279