4.6 Article

Combining conditional and unconditional recruitment incentives could facilitate telephone tracing in surveys of postpartum women

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 7, Pages 732-738

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.011

Keywords

Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview; contact rate; incentive; postpartum; tracing rate; survey

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD039753, R01 HD032579, R01-HD39753-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objective: To compare tracing and contact rates using alternative incentives in a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey among postpartum women. Methods: In a randomized trial of 1,061 postpartum women 18-49 years of age selected from four Iowa counties, we compared the effects of: (1) unconditional $5 telephone card incentive enclosed with the introductory letter followed by $25 incentive conditional upon successful telephone tracing, contact, and completion of CATI (Group 1, n = 530) vs. (2) $30 incentive conditional upon subject completion of CATI (Group 2, n = 531). Results: Overall telephone tracing and contact rates achieved were 67.8% and 66.6%, respectively. Tracing (70.2 vs. 65.4%, P =.09) and contact (68.5 vs. 64.8%, P =.26) rates were consistently higher among subjects assigned the combination of a conditional and an unconditional incentive. The combined incentive type had a greater impact on telephone tracing success rates for subjects on whom we could not initially locate an active telephone number (16.7 vs. 7.3%, P =.07) when compared to subjects for whom we found an active telephone number at the time of mailing the introductory letter (78.9 vs. 75.9%, P =.30). Conclusions: Combining conditional and unconditional recruitment incentives can facilitate telephone tracing efforts in surveys conducted among recently postpartum women. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available