Cargando…
A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial
BACKGROUND: Maximizing response rates is critically important in order to provide the most generalizable and unbiased research results. High response rates reduce the chance of respondents being systematically different from non-respondents, and thus, reduce the risk of results not truly reflecting...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126778/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21615955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-81 |
_version_ | 1782207289461047296 |
---|---|
author | Griffin, Joan M Simon, Alisha Baines Hulbert, Erin Stevenson, John Grill, Joseph P Noorbaloochi, Siamak Partin, Melissa R |
author_facet | Griffin, Joan M Simon, Alisha Baines Hulbert, Erin Stevenson, John Grill, Joseph P Noorbaloochi, Siamak Partin, Melissa R |
author_sort | Griffin, Joan M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Maximizing response rates is critically important in order to provide the most generalizable and unbiased research results. High response rates reduce the chance of respondents being systematically different from non-respondents, and thus, reduce the risk of results not truly reflecting the study population. Monetary incentives are often used to improve response rates, but little is known about whether larger incentives improve response rates in those who previously have been unenthusiastic about participating in research. In this study we compared the response rates and cost-effectiveness of a $5 versus $2 monetary incentive accompanying a short survey mailed to patients who did not respond or refused to participate in research study with a face-to-face survey. METHODS: 1,328 non-responders were randomly assigned to receive $5 or $2 and a short, 10-question survey by mail. Reminder postcards were sent to everyone; those not returning the survey were sent a second survey without incentive. Overall response rates, response rates by incentive condition, and odds of responding to the larger incentive were calculated. Total costs (materials, postage, and labor) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were also calculated and compared by incentive condition. RESULTS: After the first mailing, the response rate within the $5 group was significantly higher (57.8% vs. 47.7%, p < .001); after the second mailing, the difference narrowed by 80%, resulting in a non-significant difference in cumulative rates between the $5 and $2 groups (67.3% vs. 65.4%, respectively, p = .47). Regardless of incentive or number of contacts, respondents were significantly more likely to be male, white, married, and 50-75 years old. Total costs were higher with the larger versus smaller incentive ($13.77 versus $9.95 per completed survey). CONCLUSIONS: A $5 incentive provides a significantly higher response rate than a $2 incentive if only one survey mailing is used but not if two survey mailings are used. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3126778 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-31267782011-06-30 A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial Griffin, Joan M Simon, Alisha Baines Hulbert, Erin Stevenson, John Grill, Joseph P Noorbaloochi, Siamak Partin, Melissa R BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Maximizing response rates is critically important in order to provide the most generalizable and unbiased research results. High response rates reduce the chance of respondents being systematically different from non-respondents, and thus, reduce the risk of results not truly reflecting the study population. Monetary incentives are often used to improve response rates, but little is known about whether larger incentives improve response rates in those who previously have been unenthusiastic about participating in research. In this study we compared the response rates and cost-effectiveness of a $5 versus $2 monetary incentive accompanying a short survey mailed to patients who did not respond or refused to participate in research study with a face-to-face survey. METHODS: 1,328 non-responders were randomly assigned to receive $5 or $2 and a short, 10-question survey by mail. Reminder postcards were sent to everyone; those not returning the survey were sent a second survey without incentive. Overall response rates, response rates by incentive condition, and odds of responding to the larger incentive were calculated. Total costs (materials, postage, and labor) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were also calculated and compared by incentive condition. RESULTS: After the first mailing, the response rate within the $5 group was significantly higher (57.8% vs. 47.7%, p < .001); after the second mailing, the difference narrowed by 80%, resulting in a non-significant difference in cumulative rates between the $5 and $2 groups (67.3% vs. 65.4%, respectively, p = .47). Regardless of incentive or number of contacts, respondents were significantly more likely to be male, white, married, and 50-75 years old. Total costs were higher with the larger versus smaller incentive ($13.77 versus $9.95 per completed survey). CONCLUSIONS: A $5 incentive provides a significantly higher response rate than a $2 incentive if only one survey mailing is used but not if two survey mailings are used. BioMed Central 2011-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3126778/ /pubmed/21615955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-81 Text en Copyright ©2011 Griffin et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Griffin, Joan M Simon, Alisha Baines Hulbert, Erin Stevenson, John Grill, Joseph P Noorbaloochi, Siamak Partin, Melissa R A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial |
title | A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial |
title_full | A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial |
title_fullStr | A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial |
title_short | A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial |
title_sort | comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126778/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21615955 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-81 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT griffinjoanm acomparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT simonalishabaines acomparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT hulberterin acomparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT stevensonjohn acomparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT grilljosephp acomparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT noorbaloochisiamak acomparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT partinmelissar acomparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT griffinjoanm comparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT simonalishabaines comparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT hulberterin comparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT stevensonjohn comparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT grilljosephp comparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT noorbaloochisiamak comparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial AT partinmelissar comparisonofsmallmonetaryincentivestoconvertsurveynonrespondentsarandomizedcontroltrial |