Trial reportBMC health services research2004
Effect of prize draw incentive on the response rate to a postal survey of obstetricians and gynaecologists: a randomised controlled trial. [ISRCTN32823119].
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey.British journal of cancer · 2012Pooled it
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians.PloS one · 2018Article
- Improving response rate and quality of survey data with a scratch lottery ticket incentive.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResponse rates to postal questionnaires are falling and this threatens the external validity of survey findings. We wanted to establish whether the incentive of being entered into a prize draw to win a personal digital assistant (PDA) would increase the response rate for a national survey of consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists.
methodsA randomised controlled trial was conducted. This involved sending a postal questionnaire to all Consultant Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the United Kingdom. Recipients were randomised to receiving a questionnaire offering a prize draw incentive (on response) or no such incentive.
resultsThe response rate for recipients offered the prize incentive was 64% (461/716) and 62% (429/694) in the no incentive group (relative rate of response 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 - 1.13)
conclusionThe offer of a prize draw incentive to win a PDA did not significantly increase response rates to a national questionnaire survey of consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.