Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28422369›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2017

What impact do questionnaire length and monetary incentives have on mailed health psychology survey response?

Kathryn A Robb, Lauren Gatting, Jane Wardle

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of health psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Trial HEalth Knowledge and Beliefs Scale (CHEKS).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Promoting patient followup treatment with intra-detrusor onabotulinumtoxinA for overactive bladder.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn A RobbInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, General Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, UK.
Lauren GattingInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, General Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, UK.
Jane WardleHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL, London, UK.
University of Glasgow · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 8933Cancer Research UK C1418/A414134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesResponse rates to health-related surveys are declining. This study tested two strategies to improve the response rate to a health psychology survey mailed through English general practices: (1) sending a shortened questionnaire and (2) offering a monetary incentive to return a completed questionnaire.

designRandomized controlled trial.

methodsAdults (n = 4,241) aged 45-59 years, from four General Practices in South-East England, were mailed a survey on attitudes towards bowel cancer screening. Using a 2 × 4 factorial design, participants were randomized to receive a 'short' (four A4 pages) or a 'long' (seven A4 pages) questionnaire, and one of four monetary incentives to return a completed questionnaire - (1) no monetary incentive, (2) £2.50 shop voucher, (3) £5.00 shop voucher, and (4) inclusion in a £250 shop voucher prize draw. Age, gender, and area-level deprivation were obtained from the General Practices.

resultsThe overall response rate was 41% (n = 1,589). Response to the 'short' questionnaire (42%) was not significantly different from the 'long' questionnaire (40%). The £2.50 incentive (43%) significantly improved response rates in univariate analyses, and remained significant after controlling for age, gender, area-level deprivation, and questionnaire length. The £5.00 (42%) and £250 prize draw (41%) incentives had no significant impact on response rates compared to no incentive (38%).

conclusionsA small monetary incentive (£2.50) may slightly increase response to a mailed health psychology survey. The length of the questionnaire (four pages vs. seven pages) did not influence response. Although frequently used, entry into a prize draw did not increase response. Achieving representative samples remains a challenge for health psychology. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject Response rates to mailed questionnaires continue to decline, threatening the representativeness of data. Prize draw incentives are frequently used but there is little evidence to support their efficacy. Research on interactions between incentives, questionnaire length, and demographics is lacking. What does this study add Contrary to previous findings, questionnaire length did not influence response rate. A £2.50 incentive increased response, while incentives of £5.00 and a £250 prize draw did not. Achieving representative samples to questionnaires remains a challenge for health psychology.

Indexed as

Mental HealthMotivationPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultBehavioral MedicineEnglandFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaleMiddle Agedcancer screeningcolorectalincentiveslengthmailed surveysquestionnairesresponse ratesUK

Identifiers

PMID28422369
PMCPMC5655741
OpenAlexW2606643042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.