File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Effect of Prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial

TitleEffect of Prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial
Authors
KeywordsIncentive
Follow-up
Randomized controlled trial
Smoker
Issue Date2019
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedresmethodol/
Citation
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2019, v. 19, article no. 138, p. 1-8 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Monetary incentive is often used to increase response rate in smokers’ survey, but such effect of prepaid and promised incentives in a follow-up survey is unknown. We compared the effect of different incentive schemes on the consent and retention rates in a follow-up survey of adult cigarette smokers. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Hong Kong, China. Smokers who completed a non-incentivized baseline telephone smoking survey were invited to a 3-month follow-up, with randomization into (1) the control group (no incentive), (2) a promised HK$100 (US$12.8) incentive upon completion, (3) a promised HK$200 (US$25.6) incentive upon completion, or (4) a prepaid HK$100 incentive plus another promised HK$100 incentive (“mixed incentive”). Crude risk ratios from log-binomial regression models were used to assess if the 3 incentive schemes predicted higher rates of consent at baseline or retention at 3-month than no incentive. Results: In total, 1246 smokers were enrolled. The overall consent and retention rates were 37.1 and 23.0%, respectively. Both rates generally increased with the incentive amount and offer of prepaid incentive. The mixed incentive scheme marginally increased the retention rate versus no incentive (26.8% vs 20.3%; risk ratio (RR) = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00–1.76; P = 0.053), but not the consent rate (RR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.93–1.38; P = 0.22). Among the consented participants, approximately 50% in the mixed incentive group received the mailed prepaid incentive, who achieved a higher retention rate than the group without incentives (82.8% vs 56.1%; RR = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.21–1.80; P < 0.01). Conclusion: The mixed incentive scheme combining the prepaid and promised incentive was effective to increase the follow-up retention rate by 48%. We recommend this mixed incentive scheme to increase the follow-up retention rate. More efficient methods of delivering the incentive are needed to maximize its effects. Trial registration: U.S. Clinical Trials registry (clinicaltrials.gov, retrospectively registered, reference number: NCT03297866).
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/272082
ISSN
2018 Impact Factor: 2.509
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.788
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheung, YTD-
dc.contributor.authorWeng, X-
dc.contributor.authorWang, MP-
dc.contributor.authorHo, SY-
dc.contributor.authorKwong, ACS-
dc.contributor.authorLai, VWY-
dc.contributor.authorLam, TH-
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-20T10:35:19Z-
dc.date.available2019-07-20T10:35:19Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2019, v. 19, article no. 138, p. 1-8-
dc.identifier.issn1471-2288-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/272082-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Monetary incentive is often used to increase response rate in smokers’ survey, but such effect of prepaid and promised incentives in a follow-up survey is unknown. We compared the effect of different incentive schemes on the consent and retention rates in a follow-up survey of adult cigarette smokers. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Hong Kong, China. Smokers who completed a non-incentivized baseline telephone smoking survey were invited to a 3-month follow-up, with randomization into (1) the control group (no incentive), (2) a promised HK$100 (US$12.8) incentive upon completion, (3) a promised HK$200 (US$25.6) incentive upon completion, or (4) a prepaid HK$100 incentive plus another promised HK$100 incentive (“mixed incentive”). Crude risk ratios from log-binomial regression models were used to assess if the 3 incentive schemes predicted higher rates of consent at baseline or retention at 3-month than no incentive. Results: In total, 1246 smokers were enrolled. The overall consent and retention rates were 37.1 and 23.0%, respectively. Both rates generally increased with the incentive amount and offer of prepaid incentive. The mixed incentive scheme marginally increased the retention rate versus no incentive (26.8% vs 20.3%; risk ratio (RR) = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00–1.76; P = 0.053), but not the consent rate (RR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.93–1.38; P = 0.22). Among the consented participants, approximately 50% in the mixed incentive group received the mailed prepaid incentive, who achieved a higher retention rate than the group without incentives (82.8% vs 56.1%; RR = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.21–1.80; P < 0.01). Conclusion: The mixed incentive scheme combining the prepaid and promised incentive was effective to increase the follow-up retention rate by 48%. We recommend this mixed incentive scheme to increase the follow-up retention rate. More efficient methods of delivering the incentive are needed to maximize its effects. Trial registration: U.S. Clinical Trials registry (clinicaltrials.gov, retrospectively registered, reference number: NCT03297866).-
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.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectIncentive-
dc.subjectFollow-up-
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trial-
dc.subjectSmoker-
dc.titleEffect of Prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailCheung, YTD: takderek@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailWeng, X: wengxue@connect.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailWang, MP: mpwang@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailHo, SY: syho@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLam, TH: hrmrlth@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, YTD=rp02262-
dc.identifier.authorityWang, MP=rp01863-
dc.identifier.authorityHo, SY=rp00427-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, TH=rp00326-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12874-019-0786-9-
dc.identifier.pmid31272393-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC6610937-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85068565892-
dc.identifier.hkuros298543-
dc.identifier.volume19-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 138, p. 1-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 138, p. 8-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000474558200002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.issnl1471-2288-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats