The Library

Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? : the MINT incentive study

Tools

Gates, Simon, Williams, Mark A., Withers, Emma J., Williamson, Esther M., Mt-Isa, Shahrul and Lamb, S. E. (Sallie E.). (2009) Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? : the MINT incentive study. Trials, Vol.10 . p. 44. ISSN 1745-6215

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Gates_monetary_incentive.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (264Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-44

Abstract

Background: Sending a monetary incentive with postal questionnaires has been found to improve
the proportion of responders, in research in non-healthcare settings. However, there is little
research on use of incentives to improve follow-up rates in clinical trials, and existing studies are
inconclusive. We conducted a randomised trial among participants in the Managing Injuries of the
Neck Trial (MINT) to investigate the effects on the proportion of questionnaires returned and
overall non-response of sending a £5 gift voucher with a follow-up questionnaire.
Methods: Participants in MINT were randomised to receive either: (a) a £5 gift voucher (incentive
group) or (b) no gift voucher (no incentive group), with their 4 month or 8 month follow-up
questionnaire. We recorded, for each group, the number of questionnaires returned, the number
returned without any chasing from the study office, the overall number of non-responders (after
all chasing efforts by the study office), and the costs of following up each group.
Results: 2144 participants were randomised, 1070 to the incentive group and 1074 to the no
incentive group. The proportion of questionnaires returned (RR 1.10 (95% CI 1.05, 1.16)) and the
proportion returned without chasing (RR 1.14 (95% CI 1.05, 1.24) were higher in the incentive
group, and the overall non-response rate was lower (RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53, 0.87)). Adjustment for
injury severity and hospital of recruitment to MINT made no difference to these results, and there
were no differences in results between the 4-month and 8-month follow up questionnaires.
Analysis of costs suggested a cost of £67.29 per additional questionnaire returned.
Conclusion: Monetary incentives may be an effective way to increase the proportion of postal
questionnaires returned and minimise loss to follow-up in clinical trials.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
H Social Sciences > HA Statistics

Divisions:

Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Medical care surveys -- Response rate, Mail surveys -- Response rate, Nonresponse (Statistics), Incentive (Psychology), Clinical medicine -- Research

Journal or Publication Title:

Trials

Publisher:

BioMed Central Ltd.

ISSN:

1745-6215

Official Date:

22 June 2009

Dates:

Date	Event
22 June 2009	Published

Volume:

Vol.10

Number of Pages:

Page Range:

p. 44

Identification Number:

10.1186/1745-6215-10-44

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

NHS R & D HTA Programme (Great Britain) (HTA)

Grant number:

02/35/02 (HTA)

References:

1. Edwards PJ, Roberts IG, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I,
Cooper R, Felix L, Pratap S: Methods to increase response rates
to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007,
18(2):MR000008.
2. Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE, Nakash
RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE: Maximising
response to postal questionnaires-a systematic review of
randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol
2006, 6:5.
3. Dirmaier J, Harfst T, Koch U, Schulz H, Dirmaier J, Harfst T, Koch U,
Schulz H: Incentives increased return rates but did not influence
partial nonresponse or treatment outcome in a randomized
trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60(12):1263-1270.
4. Kenyon S, Pike K, Jones D, Taylor D, Salt A, Marlow N, Brocklehurst
P, Kenyon S, Pike K, Jones D, et al.: The effect of a monetary
incentive on return of a postal health and development questionnaire:
a randomised trial [ISRCTN53994660]. BMC
Health Serv Res 2005, 5:55.
5. Brealey SD, Atwell C, Bryan S, Coulton S, Cox H, Cross B, Fylan F,
Garratt A, Gilbert FJ, Gillan MG, et al.: Improving response rates
using a monetary incentive for patient completion of questionnaires:
an observational study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007,
7:12.
6. Lamb SE, Gates S, Underwood MR, Cooke MW, Ashby D, Szczepura
A, Williams MA, Williamson EM, Withers EJ, Mt-Isa S, et al.: Managing
Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT): design of a randomised
controlled trial of treatments for whiplash associated disorders.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007, 8:7.
7. Vernon H, Mior S: The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability
and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991, 14(7):409-415.
8. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa
S, Zeiss E: Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on
Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining "whiplash" and
its management. Spine 1995, 20(8 Suppl):1S-73S.
9. Kenyon SL, Taylor DJ, Tarnow-Mordi W, Group OC: Broad-spectrum
antibiotics for preterm, prelabour rupture of fetal
membranes: the ORACLE I randomised trial. ORACLE Collaborative
Group. Lancet 2001, 357(9261):979-988.
10. Kenyon SL, Taylor DJ, Tarnow-Mordi W, Group OC: Broad-spectrum
antibiotics for spontaneous preterm labour: the ORACLE
II randomised trial. ORACLE Collaborative Group.
Lancet 2001, 357(9261):989-994.
11. Edwards P, Cooper R, Roberts I, Frost C: Meta-analysis of randomised
trials of monetary incentives and response to
mailed questionnaires. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005,
59(11):987-999.