Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT.


Journal

Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Aug 2021
Historique:
received: 16 05 2021
accepted: 06 08 2021
entrez: 22 8 2021
pubmed: 23 8 2021
medline: 25 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty. Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation. Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return. An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns. SIFT ( ISRCTN76463425 ). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf ). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty.
METHODS METHODS
Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g).
INTERVENTIONS METHODS
parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation.
RESULTS RESULTS
Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
SIFT ( ISRCTN76463425 ). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf ). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34419121
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05515-y
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05515-y
pmc: PMC8379785
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

554

Subventions

Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 11/01/25

Investigateurs

Vasha Bari (V)
Janet Berrington (J)
Ursula Bowler (U)
Elaine Boyle (E)
Jon Dorling (J)
Nicholas Embleton (N)
Oliver Hewer (O)
Madeleine Hurd (M)
Samantha Johnson (S)
Edmund Juszczak (E)
Andrew King (A)
Alison Leaf (A)
Louise Linsell (L)
Kenny McCormick (K)
William McGuire (W)
David Murray (D)
Christopher Partlett (C)
Tracy Roberts (T)
Ben Stenson (B)

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Health Technol Assess. 2020 Apr;24(18):1-94
pubmed: 32342857
BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 Aug 18;5:55
pubmed: 16109160
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
pubmed: 19588449
BMJ. 2012 May 18;344:e2809
pubmed: 22611167
BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 04;4(2):e003821
pubmed: 24496696
Trials. 2020 Jun 8;21(1):529
pubmed: 32546180
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Mar 02;13(1):e26
pubmed: 21371988
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Jul 15;16:82
pubmed: 27421268
N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 25;374(8):749-60
pubmed: 26863265
BMC Pediatr. 2017 Jan 28;17(1):39
pubmed: 28129748
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 6;3:MR000032
pubmed: 33675536

Auteurs

Edmund Juszczak (E)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. ed.juszczak@nottingham.ac.uk.
Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. ed.juszczak@nottingham.ac.uk.

Oliver Hewer (O)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Christopher Partlett (C)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Madeleine Hurd (M)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Vasha Bari (V)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Ursula Bowler (U)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Louise Linsell (L)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Jon Dorling (J)

Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH