Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32807084›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial.

Lydia E Pace, Yeonsoo S Lee, Nadine Tung, Jada G Hamilton, Camila Gabriel, Sahitya C Raja, Colby Jenkins, Anthony Braswell, Susan M Domchek, Heather Symecko and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03351803 (BRCA Founder OutReach), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

NCT03351803 active not recruitingnot on this map

BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) Study

TypeobservationalSponsorMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterRan2017 to 2027Enrolled5,412ConditionsBRCA1 Mutation, BRCA2 MutationArmsBFOR Digital Health solution/Web Portal
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. 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

19 authors.

Lydia E PaceBrigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. lpace@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5378-0296
Yeonsoo S LeeBrigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Nadine TungBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Jada G HamiltonMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Camila GabrielDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Sahitya C RajaRush Medical College at Rush University, 600 S Paulina St Suite 202, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Colby JenkinsBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Anthony BraswellDavid Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Susan M DomchekBasser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, West Tower, Centre Square, 1500 Market St, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA.
Heather SymeckoBasser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, West Tower, Centre Square, 1500 Market St, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA.
Kelsey SpielmanBasser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, West Tower, Centre Square, 1500 Market St, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA.
Beth Y KarlanDavid Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Jenny LesterDavid Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Daniella KamaraDavid Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Jeffrey LevinMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Kelly MorganMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Kenneth OffitMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Judy GarberDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Nancy L KeatingBrigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
American Cancer Society 130741-CCCDA-17-072-01-CCCDAAmerican Cancer Society MRSG-16-020-01-CPPBBreast Cancer Research Foundation BCRF-19-039NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of population-based BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives.

methodsParticipants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site.

resultsIn unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

conclusionsAn up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians' geographic location.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03351803 ), November 24, 2017.

Indexed as

MotivationPhysiciansHumansPhiladelphiaPostal ServiceSurveys and QuestionnairesCash cardsClinician surveyResponse rateSurvey incentives

Identifiers

PMID32807084
PMCPMC7430023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.