Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Risks and rewards of using prepaid vs. postpaid incentive checks on a survey of physicians

Authors: Kristine Wiant, Emily Geisen, Darryl Creel, Gordon Willis, Andrew Freedman, Janet de Moor, Carrie Klabunde

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Survey researchers use monetary incentives as a strategy to motivate physicians’ survey participation. Experiments from general population surveys demonstrate that prepaid incentives increase response rates and lower survey administration costs relative to postpaid incentives. Experiments comparing these two incentive strategies have rarely been attempted with physician samples.

Methods

A nationally representative sample of oncologists was recruited to participate in the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. To determine the optimal strategy for survey incentives, sample members were randomly assigned to receive a $50 prepaid incentive check or a $50 promised (postpaid) incentive check. Outcome measures for this incentives experiment include cooperation rates, speed of response, check-cashing behavior, and comparison of hypothetical costs for different incentive strategies.

Results

Cooperation rates were considerably higher for sample members in the prepaid condition (41%) than in the postpaid condition (29%). Similar differences in cooperation rates were seen for physicians when stratified by region, size of the physician’s metropolitan statistical area, specialty, and gender by age. Survey responders in the prepaid condition responded earlier in the field period than those in the postpaid condition, thus requiring fewer contacts. In the prepaid group, 84% of sample members who responded with a completed survey cashed the incentive check and only 6% of nonresponders cashed the check. In the postpaid condition, 72% of survey responders cashed the check; nonresponders were not given a check. The relatively higher cooperation rates and earlier response of the responders in the prepaid condition was associated with a 30% cost savings for the prepaid condition compared to the postpaid incentive condition.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the rewards of offering physicians a prepaid incentive check outweigh the possible risks of nonresponders cashing the check. The relative cost benefit of this strategy is likely to vary depending on the amount of the incentive relative to the costs of additional contact attempts to nonresponders.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cook JV, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP. Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:160.CrossRef Cook JV, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP. Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:160.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Geisen EM, Powell R, M S, Olmsted M, Murphy J. Effects of declining response rates on nonresponse bias. Presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research; New Orleans 2017, May. Geisen EM, Powell R, M S, Olmsted M, Murphy J. Effects of declining response rates on nonresponse bias. Presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research; New Orleans 2017, May.
3.
go back to reference Cull WL, O’Connor KG, Sharp S, Tang SF. Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:213–26.CrossRef Cull WL, O’Connor KG, Sharp S, Tang SF. Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:213–26.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference McLeod CC, Klabunde CN, Willis GB, Stark D. Health care provider surveys in the United States, 2000-2010: a review. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36:106–26.CrossRef McLeod CC, Klabunde CN, Willis GB, Stark D. Health care provider surveys in the United States, 2000-2010: a review. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36:106–26.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Klabunde CN, Willis GB, McLeod CC, Dillman DA, Johnson TP, Greene SM, et al. Improving the quality of surveys of physicians and medical groups: a research agenda. Eval Health Prof. 2012;35:477–506.CrossRef Klabunde CN, Willis GB, McLeod CC, Dillman DA, Johnson TP, Greene SM, et al. Improving the quality of surveys of physicians and medical groups: a research agenda. Eval Health Prof. 2012;35:477–506.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Cho YI, Johnson TP, Vangeest JB. Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36:382–407.CrossRef Cho YI, Johnson TP, Vangeest JB. Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36:382–407.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Flanigan TS, McFarlane E, Cook S. Conducting survey research among physicians and other medical professionals -- a review of current literature: section on survey research methods. In JSM Proceedings: Survey Research Methods Section American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section, 2008. Flanigan TS, McFarlane E, Cook S. Conducting survey research among physicians and other medical professionals -- a review of current literature: section on survey research methods. In JSM Proceedings: Survey Research Methods Section American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section, 2008.
8.
go back to reference VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30:303–21.CrossRef VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30:303–21.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Singer E, Massey DS, Tourangeau R, Ye C. The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2012;645:112–41.CrossRef Singer E, Massey DS, Tourangeau R, Ye C. The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2012;645:112–41.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
11.
go back to reference Delnevo CD, Abatemarco DJ, Steinberg MB. Physician response rates to a mail survey by specialty and timing of incentive. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:234–6.CrossRef Delnevo CD, Abatemarco DJ, Steinberg MB. Physician response rates to a mail survey by specialty and timing of incentive. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:234–6.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference James KM, Ziegenfuss JY, Tilburt JC, Harris AM, Beebe TJ. Getting physicians to respond: the impact of incentive type and timing on physician survey response rates. Health Serv Res. 2011;46:232–42.CrossRef James KM, Ziegenfuss JY, Tilburt JC, Harris AM, Beebe TJ. Getting physicians to respond: the impact of incentive type and timing on physician survey response rates. Health Serv Res. 2011;46:232–42.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chen JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, Tosteson AN, Bitton A, Onega T, et al. Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:25.CrossRef Chen JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, Tosteson AN, Bitton A, Onega T, et al. Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:25.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hogan SO. The costs of using pre-paid incentives in a physician survey. Survey Practice. 2009;2.CrossRef Hogan SO. The costs of using pre-paid incentives in a physician survey. Survey Practice. 2009;2.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Geisen E, Wiant K, Creel DV, Willis G, Freedman A, de Moor J, et al. When physician survey response rates are low, do additional contacts improve data quality? Presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research; Denver, Co: 2018, May. Geisen E, Wiant K, Creel DV, Willis G, Freedman A, de Moor J, et al. When physician survey response rates are low, do additional contacts improve data quality? Presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research; Denver, Co: 2018, May.
16.
go back to reference American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 9th ed. American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR); 2016. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 9th ed. American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR); 2016.
17.
go back to reference Bethlehem J, Cobben F, Schouten B. Indicators for the representativeness of survey response. In: Proceedings of statistics Canada symposium; 2008. Gatineau, Canada. Bethlehem J, Cobben F, Schouten B. Indicators for the representativeness of survey response. In: Proceedings of statistics Canada symposium; 2008. Gatineau, Canada.
18.
go back to reference SAS Institute. SAS Enterprise Guide 7.13 HF6 (7.100.3.5513) (64-bit). SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC; 2016. SAS Institute. SAS Enterprise Guide 7.13 HF6 (7.100.3.5513) (64-bit). SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC; 2016.
19.
go back to reference Research Triangle Institute. SUDAAN Language Manual. Vols. 1 and 2. Release 11. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 2012. Research Triangle Institute. SUDAAN Language Manual. Vols. 1 and 2. Release 11. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 2012.
Metadata
Title
Risks and rewards of using prepaid vs. postpaid incentive checks on a survey of physicians
Authors
Kristine Wiant
Emily Geisen
Darryl Creel
Gordon Willis
Andrew Freedman
Janet de Moor
Carrie Klabunde
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0565-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue