4.7 Article

Effectiveness of monetary incentives for recruiting adolescents to an intervention trial to reduce smoking

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 706-713

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0762

Keywords

adolescence; smoking; smoking cessation; health surveys; costs and cost analysis; data collection; motivation; patient selection

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA74536-01, CA78183-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The study objective is to evaluate the effect of monetary incentives on response rates of adolescents to a smoking-related survey as the first step toward participation in an intervention trial. Methods. A sample of 4,200 adolescent members of a managed care organization were randomized to one of four incentive groups: a $2 cash group, a $15 cash group, a $200 prize drawing group, or a no-incentive group. We compared group-specific response rates and willingness to be contacted about future study activities, as well as costs. Results. Incentives increased survey response rates (55% response without incentive vs a 69% response with incentive), with response of 74% in the $15 cash group, 69% in the token group, and 63% with a prize incentive. Incentives did not adversely affect willingness of adolescents to be contacted about a smoking intervention, (65% willing with incentives vs 60% without, P = 0.03), In terms of cost per additional survey completed, token and prize groups were marginally more expensive than the no-incentive group ($0.40 and $1.42, respectively) while the large cash incentive was substantially more costly ($11.37), Conclusions. Monetary incentives improve response rates to a mailed survey, without adverse impact on willingness to further participate in intervention activities. However, a variety of issues must be considered when using incentives for recruitment to intervention studies. (C) 2000 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available