Abstract
BackgroundThe effect of timing of incentive payments on the response rate of telephone surveys is unknown. This study examined whether up-front or delayed incentive payments were associated with higher response rates for participation in a telephone interview administered longitudinal cohort study amongst primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms, and to compare the costs between the two timing methods.MethodsThis study was conducted as part of a naturalistic observation study on the health-related quality of life and health outcomes of Chinese primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. The incentive payment was in the form of a supermarket gift voucher to the value of HD$50 (US$6.50) and could be used in lieu of cash at a major supermarket chain.720 subjects with lower urinary tract symptoms were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was offered an incentive of supermarket cash voucher at time of recruitment (‘up-front’ payment). The other group was told that the voucher would be sent to them after the complete of their 1-year follow-up telephone interview (‘delayed’ payment). Primary outcomes were the baseline and 1-year follow-up telephone survey response rates.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in response rates at baseline (p-value = 0.938) or at the 1-year follow-up (p-value = 0.751) between groups. Cost per completed subject interviews for the up-front payment method was USD16.64, whilst cost for the delayed payment was USD 13.85.ConclusionsIt appears the timing of incentive payments does not affect response rates for telephone interview surveys conducted on primary care patients in Hong Kong at baseline or at 1-year follow-up. Delayed incentive payments can reduce the overall cost per successful case.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02307929 Registered 28 August 2013
Highlights
The effect of timing of incentive payments on the response rate of telephone surveys is unknown
The present study aimed to examine whether upfront or delayed incentive payment was associated with a higher response rate for telephone interviews in a longitudinal cohort study on primary care patients, and to compare the cost between the two incentive payment methods
Sample A (Continence care clinic) All new patients referred for services at a nurse-led continence care clinic at one of four government-funded General Out-Patient clinics (GOPC) across Hong Kong were identified from the appointment list and screened for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)
Summary
The effect of timing of incentive payments on the response rate of telephone surveys is unknown. There are significant advantages to using telephone interviews to administer surveys: it reduces the amount of time a patient needs to spend at the doctor’s clinic; it removes the need for subjects or interviewers to travel; and interviews can be conducted outside of business hours when respondents are more available. Overall, it is more convenient for the subject and can potentially help to enhance response rates for longitudinal studies that require patient self-reported information. An essential component for most survey studies is an adequate response rate to reduce nonresponse or self-selection bias [5, 6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
