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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Griffin, Joan M, Simon, Alisha Baines, Hulbert, Erin, Stevenson, John, Grill, Joseph P, Noorbaloochi, Siamak, Partin, Melissa R
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