We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Effects of different monetary incentives on the return rate of a national mail survey of physicians.
Medical Care 2001 Februrary
BACKGROUND: Mail surveys of physicians have been characterized by lower response rates than general population surveys, raising concerns about nonresponse bias. Although monetary incentives have routinely been used to improve survey response among physicians, questions remain regarding how much of an incentive is most cost-effective. The present study seeks to further examine the effects of incentive size on response rates to a national mail survey of physicians.
METHODS: This study used a random sample of 873 physicians practicing in the United States; the response rate was 65% (n = 563). Respondents were randomly assigned to receive a $5, $10, or $20 cash incentive in the initial mailing. Except for the magnitude of the incentive, the procedures for each condition were identical, with each respondent receiving up to 3 follow-up mailings and 2 telephone calls.
RESULTS: Overall response rates ranged from 60.3% for the $5 incentive category to 68.0% for the $10 incentive category. Differences in overall response rates across the incentive categories, however, were not significant. Higher levels of incentives also did not significantly reduce the number of mail and/or telephone interventions required to reach the target response rate of 60.0%. As expected, aggregate costs (excluding labor) were lowest for the $5 incentive group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that changes in the magnitude of incentive do not automatically result in increases in survey response among physicians. Possible reasons for this lack of effect as well as alternatives to monetary incentives are addressed.
METHODS: This study used a random sample of 873 physicians practicing in the United States; the response rate was 65% (n = 563). Respondents were randomly assigned to receive a $5, $10, or $20 cash incentive in the initial mailing. Except for the magnitude of the incentive, the procedures for each condition were identical, with each respondent receiving up to 3 follow-up mailings and 2 telephone calls.
RESULTS: Overall response rates ranged from 60.3% for the $5 incentive category to 68.0% for the $10 incentive category. Differences in overall response rates across the incentive categories, however, were not significant. Higher levels of incentives also did not significantly reduce the number of mail and/or telephone interventions required to reach the target response rate of 60.0%. As expected, aggregate costs (excluding labor) were lowest for the $5 incentive group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that changes in the magnitude of incentive do not automatically result in increases in survey response among physicians. Possible reasons for this lack of effect as well as alternatives to monetary incentives are addressed.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app