Cargando…

Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial

BACKGROUND: Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pace, Lydia E., Lee, Yeonsoo S., Tung, Nadine, Hamilton, Jada G., Gabriel, Camila, Raja, Sahitya C., Jenkins, Colby, Braswell, Anthony, Domchek, Susan M., Symecko, Heather, Spielman, Kelsey, Karlan, Beth Y., Lester, Jenny, Kamara, Daniella, Levin, Jeffrey, Morgan, Kelly, Offit, Kenneth, Garber, Judy, Keating, Nancy L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7430023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32807084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01086-9
_version_ 1783571360551796736
author Pace, Lydia E.
Lee, Yeonsoo S.
Tung, Nadine
Hamilton, Jada G.
Gabriel, Camila
Raja, Sahitya C.
Jenkins, Colby
Braswell, Anthony
Domchek, Susan M.
Symecko, Heather
Spielman, Kelsey
Karlan, Beth Y.
Lester, Jenny
Kamara, Daniella
Levin, Jeffrey
Morgan, Kelly
Offit, Kenneth
Garber, Judy
Keating, Nancy L.
author_facet Pace, Lydia E.
Lee, Yeonsoo S.
Tung, Nadine
Hamilton, Jada G.
Gabriel, Camila
Raja, Sahitya C.
Jenkins, Colby
Braswell, Anthony
Domchek, Susan M.
Symecko, Heather
Spielman, Kelsey
Karlan, Beth Y.
Lester, Jenny
Kamara, Daniella
Levin, Jeffrey
Morgan, Kelly
Offit, Kenneth
Garber, Judy
Keating, Nancy L.
author_sort Pace, Lydia E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of population-based BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives. METHODS: Participants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs’ knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. CONCLUSIONS: An up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians’ geographic location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7430023
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74300232020-08-18 Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial Pace, Lydia E. Lee, Yeonsoo S. Tung, Nadine Hamilton, Jada G. Gabriel, Camila Raja, Sahitya C. Jenkins, Colby Braswell, Anthony Domchek, Susan M. Symecko, Heather Spielman, Kelsey Karlan, Beth Y. Lester, Jenny Kamara, Daniella Levin, Jeffrey Morgan, Kelly Offit, Kenneth Garber, Judy Keating, Nancy L. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of population-based BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives. METHODS: Participants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs’ knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. CONCLUSIONS: An up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians’ geographic location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017. BioMed Central 2020-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7430023/ /pubmed/32807084 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01086-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pace, Lydia E.
Lee, Yeonsoo S.
Tung, Nadine
Hamilton, Jada G.
Gabriel, Camila
Raja, Sahitya C.
Jenkins, Colby
Braswell, Anthony
Domchek, Susan M.
Symecko, Heather
Spielman, Kelsey
Karlan, Beth Y.
Lester, Jenny
Kamara, Daniella
Levin, Jeffrey
Morgan, Kelly
Offit, Kenneth
Garber, Judy
Keating, Nancy L.
Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial
title Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial
title_full Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial
title_fullStr Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial
title_short Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial
title_sort comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7430023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32807084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01086-9
work_keys_str_mv AT pacelydiae comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT leeyeonsoos comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT tungnadine comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT hamiltonjadag comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT gabrielcamila comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT rajasahityac comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT jenkinscolby comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT braswellanthony comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT domcheksusanm comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT symeckoheather comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT spielmankelsey comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT karlanbethy comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT lesterjenny comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT kamaradaniella comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT levinjeffrey comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT morgankelly comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT offitkenneth comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT garberjudy comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial
AT keatingnancyl comparisonofupfrontcashcardsandchecksasincentivesforparticipationinacliniciansurveyastudywithinatrial