Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial.
Cash cards
Clinician survey
Response rate
Survey incentives
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 08 2020
17 08 2020
Historique:
received:
23
03
2020
accepted:
22
07
2020
entrez:
19
8
2020
pubmed:
19
8
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evidence 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. Participants 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. In 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. An 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. ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03351803 ), November 24, 2017.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Evidence 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.
METHODS
Participants 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.
RESULTS
In 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.
CONCLUSIONS
An 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 REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03351803 ), November 24, 2017.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32807084
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01086-9
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-01086-9
pmc: PMC7430023
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03351803']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
210Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : Breast Cancer Research Foundation
ID : BCRF-19-039
Pays : International
Organisme : American Cancer Society
ID : MRSG-16-020-01-CPPB
Pays : International
Organisme : American Cancer Society
ID : 130741-CCCDA-17-072-01-CCCDA
Pays : International
Références
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 23;13(8):e0202755
pubmed: 30138406
Am J Med Genet A. 2003 Jul 1;120A(1):63-71
pubmed: 12794694
Eval Health Prof. 2013 Mar;36(1):106-26
pubmed: 23378504
PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e28108
pubmed: 22132224
Eval Health Prof. 2013 Sep;36(3):382-407
pubmed: 23975761
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Sep 14;9:160
pubmed: 19751504
J Med Genet. 2005 Oct;42(10):749-55
pubmed: 15784723
Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct;46(5):1663-74
pubmed: 21492159
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Apr;12(4):295-303
pubmed: 12692103
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 06;14:76
pubmed: 24906492
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 24;16:25
pubmed: 26911445
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Oct 11;18(1):104
pubmed: 30305049
J Cancer Educ. 2017 Mar;32(1):119-124
pubmed: 26637472
Med Care. 2008 Aug;46(8):878-81
pubmed: 18665068
Am J Prev Med. 2004 Apr;26(3):234-6
pubmed: 15026104
J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Aug;57(8):777-84
pubmed: 15485729
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 10;26(35):5789-96
pubmed: 19001322