In an effort to counter the problem of noncooperation, survey organizations are offering incentives to respondents with increasing frequency, some at the outset of the survey, as has traditionally been done in mail surveys, and some only after the person has refused, in an attempt to convert the refusal. This article reports on a series of experiments carried out over a period of about 2 years with a monthly telephone survey, the Survey of Consumer Attitudes, in an effort to increase response rates or reduce interviewer effort. We report on experiments with prepaid versus promised incentives; advance letters; and advance letters with prepaid incentives; and we also report on the effects of incentives on response quality, sample composition, response bias, interviewer and respondent expectations, and costs.In an effort to counter the growing problem of noncooperation (De Heer and Israëls 1992;De Leeuw and De Heer 1999;Groves and Couper 1996;Steeh et al. 1999), survey organizations are offering incentives to respondents with increasing frequency, some at the outset of the survey, as has traditionally been done in mail surveys, and some only after the person has refused, in an attempt to convert the refusal. In the case of mail surveys, the payment of incentives is one of two design factors that consistently and substantially increase the response rate, the other being the number of contacts (Heberlein and Baumgartner 1978;Yu and Cooper 1983).

Background Patients should understand the risks and benefits of cancer screening in order to make informed screening decisions. Objectives Evaluate the extent of informed decision making in patient-provider discussions for colorectal (CRC), breast (BrCa), and prostate (PCa) cancer screening. Design National random-digit dial telephone survey. Subjects English-speaking U.S. adults aged 50 and older who had discussed cancer screening with a health care provider within the previous two years. Measurements Cancer screening survey modules that asked about sociodemographic characteristics, cancer knowledge, the importance of various sources of information, and self-reported cancer-screening decision-making processes. Results Overall, 1,082 participants completed one or more of the three cancer modules. Although participants generally considered themselves well informed about screening tests, half or more could not correctly answer even one open-ended knowledge question for any given module. Participants consistently overestimated risks for being diagnosed with and dying from each cancer and overestimated the positive predictive values of PSA tests and mammography. Providers were the most highly rated information source, usually initiated screening discussions (64–84%), and often recommended screening (73–90%). However, participants reported providers elicited their screening preferences in only 31% (CRC women) to 57% (PCa) of discussions. While over 90% of the discussions addressed the pros of screening, only 19% (BrCa) to 30% (PCa) addressed the cons of screening. Limitations Recall bias is possible because screening process reports were not independently validated. Conclusions Cancer screening decisions reported by patients who discussed screening with their health care providers consistently failed to meet criteria for being informed. Given the high ratings for provider information and frequent recommendations for screening, providers have important opportunities to ensure that informed decision-making occurs for cancer screening decisions.

This study was designed to shed light on whether differences in utilization of genetic testing by African-Americans, Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites are due primarily to different preferences, or whether they instead reflect other values and beliefs or differential access. It explores the values, attitudes, and beliefs of African-Americans, Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites with respect to genetic testing by means of a telephone survey of representative samples of these three groups. The study finds clear evidence that Latinos and African-Americans are, if anything, more likely to express preferences for both prenatal and adult genetic testing than White respondents. At the same time, they hold other beliefs and attitudes that may conflict with, and override, these preferences in specific situations. African-Americans and Latinos are also less knowledgeable about genetic testing than non-Hispanic Whites, and they are less likely to have the financial resources or insurance coverage that would facilitate access to testing.

No abstract

Objectives. We investigated the odds of hypertension for Black men in relationship to their socioeconomic position (SEP) in both childhood and adulthood. Methods. On the basis of their parents’ occupation, we classified 379 men in the Pitt County (North Carolina) Study into low and high childhood SEP. The men’s own education, occupation, employment status, and home ownership status were used to classify them into low and high adulthood SEP. Four life-course SEP categories resulted: low childhood/low adulthood, low childhood/high adulthood, high childhood/low adulthood, and high childhood/high adulthood. Results. Low childhood SEP was associated with a 60% greater odds of hypertension, and low adulthood SEP was associated with a 2-fold greater odds of hypertension. Compared with men of high SEP in both childhood and adulthood, the odds of hypertension were 7 times greater for low/low SEP men, 4 times greater for low/high SEP men, and 6 times greater for high/low SEP men. Conclusions. Greater access to material resources in both childhood and adulthood was protective against premature hypertension in this cohort of Black men. Though some parameter estimates were imprecise, study findings are consistent with both pathway and cumulative burden models of hypertension.