Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2018
The effect of a voucher incentive on a survey response rate in the clinical setting: a quasi-randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Promised and Lottery Airtime Incentives to Improve Interactive Voice Response Survey Participation Among Adults in Bangladesh and Uganda: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Reducing compulsive Internet use and anxiety symptoms via two brief interventions: A comparison between mindfulness and gradual muscle relaxation.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2019Trial
- Altruistic donation to improve survey responses: a global randomized trial.BMC research notes · 2019Trial
- Innovations in HPV vaccination and their role in global cervical cancer control: a review.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2026Review
- Can government subsidies and public mechanisms alleviate the physical and mental health vulnerability of China's urban and rural residents?International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Improving Electronic Survey Response Rates Among Cancer Center Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR cancer · 2021Article
- Patient and family views of team functioning in primary healthcare teams with nurse practitioners: a survey of patient-reported experience and outcomes.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Measurement and determinants of catastrophic health expenditure among elderly households in China using longitudinal data from the CHARLS.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- The effect of multiple recruitment contacts on response rates and patterns of missing data in a survey of bladder cancer survivors 6 months after cystectomy.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFinancial rewards have been shown to be an important motivator to include normal healthy volunteers in trials. Less emphasis has been put on non-healthy volunteers. No previous study has investigated the impact of a voucher incentive for participants in a cross-sectional study in a clinical setting. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a small voucher incentive on a survey response rate in a clinical setting at the point-of-care in a quasi-randomized controlled trial (q-RCT).
methodsThis was an ancillary study to a survey of patients subsequent to their appointment with a physician investigating physician-patient communication. We randomized participants to receive or not receive a voucher for a coffee (costs: 1 €) enclosed in the survey package. Alternation of groups was performed on a weekly basis. The exact Chi-square test was used to compare response rates between study arms.
resultsIn total, 472 participants received the survey package. Among them, 249 participants were quasi-randomized to the voucher arm and 223 to the control group. The total response rate was 46%. The response rates were 48% in the voucher arm and 44% in the control group. The corresponding risk ratio was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.32).
conclusionsA small voucher incentive to increase the response rate in a survey investigating physician-patient communication was unlikely to have an impact. It can be speculated whether the magnitude of the voucher was too low to generate an impact. This should be further investigated in future real-world studies.
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.