Effects on Subject Response of Information Brochures and Small Cash Incentives in a Mail-Based Case-Control Study

Parkes, Robert; Kreiger, Nancy; James, Bonnie; Johnson, Kenneth C.

doi:10.1016/s1047-2797(99)00047-2

Cited by 31 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In these studies, cash incentives [5][6][7][8][9][10] and repeated contacts 2 appeared to have the greatest impact on response rates, although monetary amount may not be extremely important in eliciting response. In one study, there was little benefit in increasing the cash incentive amount from $1.00 to $2.00.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…A recent systematic review 1 and epidemiological studies conducted on techniques to improve response rates have examined such factors as questionnaire length, [2][3][4] repeated contacts, 2,3,5,6 cash incentives, [5][6][7][8][9][10] and lottery tickets or drawings, 4,5,[10][11][12][13] with varying results. In these studies, cash incentives [5][6][7][8][9][10] and repeated contacts 2 appeared to have the greatest impact on response rates, although monetary amount may not be extremely important in eliciting response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Randomized Trial of Incentives to Improve Response Rates to a Mailed Women's Health Questionnaire

Whiteman

Langenberg

Kjerulff

et al. 2003

Journal of Women's Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Trial of Incentives to Improve Response Rates to a Mailed Women's Health Questionnaire

Whiteman

Langenberg

Kjerulff

et al. 2003

Journal of Women's Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, participation among controls offered a $5.00 incentive was significantly higher than among controls approached for participation in the previous year without an incentive (56 and 44% respectively, p < 0.001). Gilbart et al and Parkes et al found that $5.00 incentives increased responses to questionnaires among controls from cancer case-control studies by 20 and 15%, respectively [12,13]; Parkes et al [8] also found that a $2.00 bill increased participation among controls by 11%. The focus of previous incentive studies was questionnaire response, so strict comparison of response to blood collection in the present study is difficult.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood spots as an alternative to whole blood collection and the effect of a small monetary incentive to increase participation in genetic association studies

Bhatti

Kampa

Alexander

et al. 2009

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCollection of buccal cells from saliva for DNA extraction offers a less invasive and convenient alternative to venipuncture blood collection that may increase participation in genetic epidemiologic studies. However, dried blood spot collection, which is also a convenient method, offers a means of collecting peripheral blood samples from which analytes in addition to DNA can be obtained.MethodsTo determine if offering blood spot collection would increase participation in genetic epidemiologic studies, we conducted a study of collecting dried blood spot cards by mail from a sample of female cancer cases (n = 134) and controls (n = 256) who were previously selected for a breast cancer genetics study and declined to provide a venipuncture blood sample. Participants were also randomized to receive either a $2.00 bill or no incentive with the blood spot collection kits.ResultsThe average time between the venipuncture sample refusal and recruitment for the blood spot collection was 4.4 years. Thirty-seven percent of cases and 28% of controls provided a dried blood spot card. While the incentive was not associated with participation among controls (29% for $2.00 incentive vs. 26% for no incentive, p = 0.6), it was significantly associated with participation among the breast cancer cases (48% vs. 27%, respectively, p = 0.01). There did not appear to be any bias in response since no differences between cases and controls and incentive groups were observed when examining several demographic, work history and radiation exposure variables.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that collection of dried blood spot cards in addition to venipuncture blood samples may be a feasible method to increase participation in genetic case-control studies.

show abstract

“…Sex, age (< 50, 50-75, > 75), urban/rural residence (determined from U.S. census data), comorbidity history and mental health diagnoses were extracted from VHA administrative and medical record data; therefore, data were available for ancillary survey respondents and non-respondents. Comorbidities were summarized using the Charlson Comorbidity Index score[21] and a measure of mental health diagnoses which categorized individuals into one of three groups: (1) no mental health diagnoses, (2) at least one psychiatric (ICD-9 codes 290-302 and 306-311) or substance abuse related (ICD-9 codes 303-305) diagnosis, or (3) dual diagnosis (psychiatric and substance abuse). Measures of mental health diagnoses were included because they could conceivably affect the accuracy of survey response and are not captured in the Charlson Comorbidity Index.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial

Griffin

Simon

Hulbert

et al. 2011

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMaximizing 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.Methods1,328 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.ResultsAfter 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).ConclusionsA $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.

show abstract

Effects on Subject Response of Information Brochures and Small Cash Incentives in a Mail-Based Case-Control Study

Cited by 31 publications

References 25 publications

A Randomized Trial of Incentives to Improve Response Rates to a Mailed Women's Health Questionnaire

A Randomized Trial of Incentives to Improve Response Rates to a Mailed Women's Health Questionnaire

Blood spots as an alternative to whole blood collection and the effect of a small monetary incentive to increase participation in genetic association studies

A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About