Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31431933›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019

A pilot randomized trial of five financial incentive strategies to increase study enrollment and retention rates.

Dustin C Krutsinger, Kuldeep N Yadav, Elizabeth Cooney, Steven Brooks, Scott D Halpern, Katherine R Courtright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The impact of learning about financial compensation on enrollment in Alzheimer's disease longitudinal research.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Dustin C KrutsingerPalliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.
Kuldeep N YadavPalliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.
Elizabeth CooneyPalliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.
Steven BrooksPalliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.
Scott D HalpernPalliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.
Katherine R CourtrightPalliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, USA.

Funding

Training in Critical Care Health Policy ResearchT32HL098054 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Scott D Halpern · 2010 to 2026
$8.2M
Improving the fairness of RCTs among patients with acute and chronic respiratory failureK24HL143289 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Scott D Halpern · 2018 to 2026
$1.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL143289NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL098054
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnrollment and retention difficulties remain major barriers to conducting clinical trials. Financial incentives may promote clinical trial enrollment, however delivery methods to maximize enrollment, maximize retention, and minimize cost remains uncertain.

methodsWe conducted a single-blind, web-based randomized controlled trial of five financial incentive strategies on enrollment and retention rates in a longitudinal study of advance directives among community-dwelling older adults. Participants were eligible to receive a fixed total financial incentive, but the disbursement amounts at each study timepoint (baseline, 2-weeks, 4-weeks, and 6-weeks) differed between study arms. At each timepoint, participants completed a different advance directive. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes of enrollment and retention.

results1803 adults were randomized to one of five incentive strategies: constant n = 361; increasing n = 357; U-shaped n = 361; surprise n = 360; self-select n = 364. Overall, 989 (54.9%) participants elected to enroll in the advance directive study. There were no differences in enrollment rates between the control (constant 53.5%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 54.3%, p = 0.81; U-shaped 57.3%, p = 0.30; surprise 56.9%, p = 0.35; and self-select 52.2%, p = 0.73). There were no differences in retention rates between the control (constant 2.1%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 5.2%, p = 0.09; U-shaped 3.9%, p = 0.23; surprise 2.4%, p = 0.54; self-select 2.1%, p = 0.63).

conclusionsFinancial incentive programs for trial enrollment informed by behavioral economic insights were no more effective than a constant-payment approach in this web-based pilot study.

Indexed as

Behavioral economicsCompensationEnrollmentIncentivesRCT, Randomized controlled trialRecruitmentRetention

Identifiers

PMID31431933
PMCPMC6580090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.