Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Incentive delivery timing and follow-up survey completion in a prospective cohort study of injured children: a randomized experiment comparing prepaid and postpaid incentives

Authors: Morgan M. Millar, Lenora M. Olson, John M. VanBuren, Rachel Richards, Murray M. Pollack, Richard Holubkov, Robert A. Berg, Joseph A. Carcillo, Patrick S. McQuillen, Kathleen L. Meert, Peter M. Mourani, Randall S. Burd

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Retaining participants over time is a frequent challenge in research studies evaluating long-term health outcomes. This study’s objective was to compare the impact of prepaid and postpaid incentives on response to a six-month follow-up survey.

Methods

We conducted an experiment to compare response between participants randomized to receive either prepaid or postpaid cash card incentives within a multisite study of children under 15 years in age who were hospitalized for a serious, severe, or critical injury. Participants were parents or guardians of enrolled children. The primary outcome was survey response. We also examined whether demographic characteristics were associated with response and if incentive timing influenced the relationship between demographic characteristics and response. We evaluated whether incentive timing was associated with the number of calls needed for contact.

Results

The study enrolled 427 children, and parents of 420 children were included in this analysis. Follow-up survey response did not differ according to the assigned treatment arm, with the percentage of parents responding to the survey being 68.1% for the prepaid incentive and 66.7% with the postpaid incentive. Likelihood of response varied by demographics. Spanish-speaking parents and parents with lower income and lower educational attainment were less likely to respond. Parents of Hispanic/Latino children and children with Medicaid insurance were also less likely to respond. We found no relationship between the assigned incentive treatment and the demographics of respondents compared to non-respondents.

Conclusions

Prepaid and postpaid incentives can obtain similar participation in longitudinal pediatric critical care outcomes research. Incentives alone do not ensure retention of all demographic subgroups. Strategies for improving representation of hard-to-reach populations are needed to address health disparities and ensure the generalizability of studies using these results.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(9):643–53.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Marcellus L. Are we missing anything? Pursuing research on attrition. Can J Nurs Res. 2004;36(3):82–98.PubMed
4.
Gustavson K, von Soest T, Karevold E, Røysamb E. Attrition and generalizability in longitudinal studies: findings from a 15-year population-based study and a Monte Carlo simulation study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:e918.CrossRef
5.
McDonald B, Haardoerfer R, Windle M, Goodman M, Berg C. Implications of attrition in a longitudinal web-based survey: an examination of college students participating in a tobacco use study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017;3(4):e73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Brilleman SL, Pachana NA, Dobson AJ. The impact of attrition on the representativeness of cohort studies of older people. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Watson N, Wooden M. Identifying factors affecting longitudinal survey response. In: Lynn P, editor. Methodology of longitudinal surveys. West Sussex: Wiley; 2009. p. 157–82.CrossRef
8.
Satherley N, Milojev P, Greaves LM, Huang Y, Osborne D, Bulbulia J, et al. Demographic and psychological predictors of panel attrition: evidence from the New Zealand attitudes and values study. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0121950.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Brueton VC, Tierney JF, Stenning S, Meredith S, Harding S, Nazareth I, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e003821.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Teague S, Youssef GJ, Macdonald JA, Sciberras E, Shatte A, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, et al. Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):151.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Booker CL, Harding S, Benzeval M. A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):249.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Robinson KA, Dinglas VD, Sukrithan V, Yalamanchilli R, Mendez-Tellez PA, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, et al. Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1481–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Morgan AJ, Rapee RM, Bayer JK. Increasing response rates to follow-up questionnaires in health intervention research: randomized controlled trial of a gift card prize incentive. Clin Trials. 2017;14(4):381–6.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Mercer A, Caporaso A, Cantor D, Townsend R. How much gets you how much? Monetary incentives and response rates in household surveys. Public Opin Q. 2015;79(1):105–29.CrossRef
15.
16.
Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q. 1993;57(1):62–79.CrossRef
17.
Singer E, Ye C. The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2013;645(1):112–41.CrossRef
18.
Fumagalli L, Laurie H, Lynn P. Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2013;176(2):499–519.CrossRef
19.
Laurie H, Lynn P. The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys. In: Lynn P, editor. Methodology of longitudinal surveys. West Sussex: Wiley; 2009. p. 205–33.CrossRef
20.
Kretschmer S, Muller G. The wave 6 NEPS adult incentive experiment. Methoden Daten Anal. 2017;11(1):7–28.
21.
Young B, Bedford L, das Nair R, Gallant S, Littleford R, JFR R, et al. Unconditional and conditional monetary incentives to increase response to mailed questionnaires: a randomized controlled study within a trial (SWAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(3):893–902.PubMedCrossRef
22.
LaRose R, Tsai H-YS. Completion rates and non-response error in online surveys: Comparing sweepstakes and pre-paid cash incentives in studies of online behavior. Comput Human Behav. 2014;34:110–9.CrossRef
23.
Lesser VM, Dillman DA, Carlson J, Lorenz F, Mason R, Willits F. Quantifying the influence of incentives on mail survey response rates and their effects on nonresponse error. Atlanta: Annual meeting of the American Statistical Association; 2001.
24.
Petrolia DR, Bhattacharjee S. Revisiting incentive effects: evidence from a random-sample mail survey on consumer preferences for fuel ethanol. Public Opin Q. 2009;73(3):537–50.CrossRef
25.
Parsons NL, Manierre MJ. Investigating the relationship among prepaid token incentives, response rates, and nonresponse bias in a web survey. Field Method. 2014;26(2):191–204.CrossRef
26.
Teixeira R, Queiroga AC, Freitas AI, Lorthe E, Santos AC, Moreira C, et al. Completeness of retention data and determinants of attrition in birth cohorts of very preterm infants: a systematic review. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:529733.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Lipps O. Effects of different incentives on attrition and fieldwork effort in telephone household panel surveys. Surv Res Methods. 2010;4:81–90.
28.
Becker R, Glauser D. Are prepaid monetary incentives sufficient for reducing panel attrition and optimizing the response rate? An experiment in the context of a multi-wave panel with a sequential mixed-mode design. Bull Methodol Sociol. 2018;139(1):74–95.CrossRef
29.
Pollack MM, Holubkov R, Glass P, Dean JM, Meert KL, Zimmerman J, et al. Functional status scale: new pediatric outcome measure. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):e18–28.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Watson RS, Choong K, Colville G, Crow S, Dervan LA, Hopkins RO, et al. Life after critical illness in children-toward an understanding of pediatric post-intensive care syndrome. J Pediatr. 2018;198:16–24.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Pinto NP, Rhinesmith EW, Kim TY, Ladner PH, Pollack MM. Long-term function after pediatric critical illness: results from the Survivor Outcomes Study. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017;18(3):e122–e30.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Becker R, Möser S, Glauser D. Cash vs. vouchers vs. gifts in web surveys of a mature panel study––main effects in a long-term incentives experiment across three panel waves. Soc Sci Res. 2019;81:221–34.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Pace LE, Lee YS, Tung N, Hamilton JG, Gabriel C, Raja SC, et al. Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):210.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Avdeyeva OA, Matland RE. An experimental test of mail surveys as a tool for social inquiry in Russia. Int J Public Opin Res. 2012;25(2):173–94.CrossRef
37.
Natale JE, Lebet R, Joseph JG, Ulysse C, Ascenzi J, Wypij D, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in parental refusal of consent in a large, multisite pediatric critical care clinical trial. J Pediatr. 2017;184:204–8.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Cui Z, Truesdale KP, Robinson TN, Pemberton V, French SA, Escarfuller J, et al. Recruitment strategies for predominantly low-income, multi-racial/ethnic children and parents to 3-year community-based intervention trials: Childhood obesity prevention and treatment research (coptr) consortium. Trials. 2019;20(1):296.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
George S, Duran N, Norris K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(2):e16–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
41.
Kaiser BL, Thomas GR, Bowers BJ. A case study of engaging hard-to-reach participants in the research process: community advisors on research design and strategies (CARDS)®. Res Nurs Health. 2017;40(1):70–9.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Paskett ED, Reeves KW, McLaughlin JM, Katz ML, McAlearney AS, Ruffin MT, et al. Recruitment of minority and underserved populations in the united states: The centers for population health and health disparities experience. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2008;29(6):847–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Varni JW, Limbers CA, Burwinkle TM. Parent proxy-report of their children’s health-related quality of life: An analysis of 13,878 parents’ reliability and validity across age subgroups using the PedsQL 4.0 generic core scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Schor EL. Family pediatrics: report of the task force on the family. Pediatrics. 2003;111(6 Pt 2):1541–71.PubMed
45.
46.
Wiant K, Geisen E, Creel D, Willis G, Freedman A, de Moor J, et al. Risks and rewards of using prepaid vs. Postpaid incentive checks on a survey of physicians. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):104.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2014.
48.
Patel MX, Doku V, Tennakoon L. Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2003;9(3):229–38.CrossRef
49.
Wu V, Abo-Sido N, Espinola JA, Tierney CN, Tedesco KT, Sullivan AF, et al. Predictors of successful telephone follow-up in a multicenter study of infants with severe bronchiolitis. Ann Epidemiol. 2017;27(7):454–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Young AF, Powers JR, Bell SL. Attrition in longitudinal studies: Who do you lose? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2006;30(4):353–61.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Incentive delivery timing and follow-up survey completion in a prospective cohort study of injured children: a randomized experiment comparing prepaid and postpaid incentives
Authors
Morgan M. Millar
Lenora M. Olson
John M. VanBuren
Rachel Richards
Murray M. Pollack
Richard Holubkov
Robert A. Berg
Joseph A. Carcillo
Patrick S. McQuillen
Kathleen L. Meert
Peter M. Mourani
Randall S. Burd
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01421-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research article

Incorporating and addressing testing bias within estimates of epidemic dynamics for SARS-CoV-2

Research article

Applied comparison of large‐scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research

Research article

A demonstration of using formal consensus methods within guideline development; a case study

Research article

Patient-centered practices for engaging transgender and gender diverse patients in clinical research studies

Research article

International representation of authors, editors and research in neurology journals

Research

The INSPIRE Population Survey: development, dissemination and respondent characteristics