Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Unconditional and conditional monetary incentives to increase response to mailed questionnaires: a randomized controlled study within a trial (SWAT)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

DOI

Open Access Status

  • Embargoed (until 22/07/20)

Author(s)

Ben Young, Laura Bedford, Roshan das Nair, Stephanie Gallant, Roberta Littleford, John F.R. Robertson, Stuart Schembri, Frank M. Sullivan, Kavita Vedhara, Denise Kendrick, ECLS study team

School/Research organisations

Abstract

Rationale, aims, and objectives:  High response rates to research questionnaires can help to ensure results are more representative of the population studied and provide increased statistical power, on which the study may have been predicated. Improving speed and quality of response can reduce costs.

Method:  We conducted a randomized study within a trial (SWAT) to assess questionnaire response rates, reminders sent, and data completeness with unconditional compared with conditional monetary incentives. Eligible individuals were mailed a series of psychological questionnaires as a follow‐up to a baseline host trial questionnaire. Half received a £5 gift voucher with questionnaires (unconditional), and half were promised the voucher after returning questionnaires (conditional).

Results:  Of 1079 individuals, response rates to the first follow‐up questionnaire were 94.2% and 91.7% in the unconditional and conditional monetary incentive groups, respectively (OR 1.78; 95% CI, 0.85‐3.72). There were significantly greater odds of returning repeat questionnaires in the unconditional group at 6 months (OR 2.97; 95% CI, 1.01‐8.71; .047) but not at 12 months (OR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.44‐2.85). Incentive condition had no impact at any time point on the proportion of sent questionnaires that needed reminders. Odds of incomplete questionnaires were significantly greater at 3 months in the unconditional compared with the conditional incentive group (OR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.32‐4.55; .004).

Conclusions:  Unconditional monetary incentives can produce a transitory greater likelihood of mailed questionnaire response in a clinical trial participant group, consistent with the direction of effect in other settings. However, this could have been a chance finding. The use of multiple strategies to promote response may have created a ceiling effect. This strategy has potential to reduce administrative and postage costs, weighed against the cost of incentives used, but could risk compromising the completeness of data.
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
VolumeEarly View
Early online date22 Jul 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 22 Jul 2019

    Research areas

  • Questionnaires, Response rates, Recruitment strategies, Monetary incentives, Clinical trial, Randomized, SWAT

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Do statins have an effect on depressive symptoms? A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Yatham, M. S., Yatham, K. S., Ravindran, A. V. & Sullivan, F., 1 Oct 2019, In : Journal of Affective Disorders. 257, p. 55-63 9 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): a randomised, open-label trial

    RESTART Collaboration & Sullivan, F., 29 Jun 2019, In : Lancet. 393, 10191, p. 2613-2623 11 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. The impact of treatment adherence for patients with diabetes and hypertension on cardiovascular disease risk: a protocol for a retrospective cohort study, 2008-2018

    Su, M., Haldane, V., Upshur, R., Sullivan, F., Garda, F. L. A., Greiver, M. & Wei, X., 31 May 2019, In : JMIR Research Protocols. 8, 5, 11 p., e13571.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. Factors associated with recruitment to randomised controlled trials in general practice: protocol for a systematic review

    Moffat, K. R., Cannon, P., Shi, W. & Sullivan, F., 10 May 2019, In : Trials. 20, 4 p., 66.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  5. Podiatry interventions to prevent falls in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Wylie, G., Torrens, C., Campbell, P., Frost, H., Gordon, A. L., Menz, H. B., Skelton, D. A., Sullivan, F., Witham, M. D. & Morris, J., May 2019, In : Age and Ageing. 48, 3, p. 327–336 10 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related by journal

  1. Would you like to add a weight after this blood pressure, doctor? Discovery of potentially actionable associations between the provision of multiple screens in primary care

    Kalia, S., Greiver, M., Zhao, X., Meaney, C., Moineddin, R., Aliarzadeh, B., Grunfeld, E. & Sullivan, F., Apr 2018, In : Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 24, 2, p. 423-430 8 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Trust and distrust between patient and doctor

    Hawley, K. J., Oct 2015, In : Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 21, 5, p. 798-801

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Understanding culture and culture management in the English NHS: a comparison of professional and patient perspectives

    Konteh, F. H., Mannion, R. & Davies, H. T. O., Feb 2011, In : Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 17, 1, p. 111-117 7 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. Delivering feedback on learning organization characteristics - using a Learning Practice Inventory

    Kelly, D. R., Lough, M., Rushmer, R., Wilkinson, J. E., Greig, G. & Davies, H. T. O., Oct 2007, In : Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 13, p. 734-740 7 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ID: 259346598

Top