File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial

TitleThe effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial
Authors
KeywordsChinese population
Incentive
Longitudinal study
Response rate
Telephone interview
Cost minimization
Issue Date2015
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedresmethodol/
Citation
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2015, v. 15, p. article no. 79 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: The effect of timing of incentive payments on the response rate of telephone surveys is unknown. This study examined whether up-front or delayed Incentive payments were associated with higher response rates for participation in a telephone interview administered longitudinal cohort study amongst primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms, and to compare the costs between the two timing methods. Methods: This study was conducted as part of a naturalistic observation study on the health-related quality of life and health outcomes of Chinese primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. The Incentive payment was in the form of a supermarket gift voucher to the value of HD$50 (US$6.50) and could be used in lieu of cash at a major supermarket chain.720 subjects with lower urinary tract symptoms were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was offered an Incentive of supermarket cash voucher at time of recruitment ('up-front' payment). The other group was told that the voucher would be sent to them after the complete of their 1-year follow-up telephone interview ('delayed' payment). Primary outcomes were the baseline and 1-year follow-up telephone survey response rates. Results: There was no statistical difference in response rates at baseline (p-value = 0.938) or at the 1-year follow-up (p-value = 0.751) between groups. Cost per completed subject interviews for the up-front payment method was USD16.64, whilst cost for the delayed payment was USD 13.85. Conclusions: It appears the timing of Incentive payments does not affect response rates for telephone interview surveys conducted on primary care patients in Hong Kong at baseline or at 1-year follow-up. Delayed Incentive payments can reduce the overall cost per successful case. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02307929 Registered 28 August 2013.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/232006
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.059
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.788

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChin, WY-
dc.contributor.authorChoi, PH-
dc.contributor.authorLam, CLK-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-20T05:26:56Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-20T05:26:56Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2015, v. 15, p. article no. 79-
dc.identifier.issn1471-2288-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/232006-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The effect of timing of incentive payments on the response rate of telephone surveys is unknown. This study examined whether up-front or delayed Incentive payments were associated with higher response rates for participation in a telephone interview administered longitudinal cohort study amongst primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms, and to compare the costs between the two timing methods. Methods: This study was conducted as part of a naturalistic observation study on the health-related quality of life and health outcomes of Chinese primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. The Incentive payment was in the form of a supermarket gift voucher to the value of HD$50 (US$6.50) and could be used in lieu of cash at a major supermarket chain.720 subjects with lower urinary tract symptoms were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was offered an Incentive of supermarket cash voucher at time of recruitment ('up-front' payment). The other group was told that the voucher would be sent to them after the complete of their 1-year follow-up telephone interview ('delayed' payment). Primary outcomes were the baseline and 1-year follow-up telephone survey response rates. Results: There was no statistical difference in response rates at baseline (p-value = 0.938) or at the 1-year follow-up (p-value = 0.751) between groups. Cost per completed subject interviews for the up-front payment method was USD16.64, whilst cost for the delayed payment was USD 13.85. Conclusions: It appears the timing of Incentive payments does not affect response rates for telephone interview surveys conducted on primary care patients in Hong Kong at baseline or at 1-year follow-up. Delayed Incentive payments can reduce the overall cost per successful case. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02307929 Registered 28 August 2013.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedresmethodol/-
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Medical Research Methodology-
dc.rightsBMC Medical Research Methodology. Copyright © BioMed Central Ltd.-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectChinese population-
dc.subjectIncentive-
dc.subjectLongitudinal study-
dc.subjectResponse rate-
dc.subjectTelephone interview-
dc.subjectCost minimization-
dc.titleThe effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailChin, WY: chinwy@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLam, CLK: clklam@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityChin, WY=rp00290-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, CLK=rp00350-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12874-015-0073-3-
dc.identifier.pmid26445404-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84943561861-
dc.identifier.hkuros263680-
dc.identifier.volume15-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 79-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 79-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats