Dataset Information

Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Monetary incentive is often used to increase response rate in smokers' survey, but such effect of prepaid and promised incentives in a follow-up survey is unknown. We compared the effect of different incentive schemes on the consent and retention rates in a follow-up survey of adult cigarette smokers. METHODS:This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Hong Kong, China. Smokers who completed a non-incentivized baseline telephone smoking survey were invited to a 3-month follow-up, with randomization into (1) the control group (no incentive), (2) a promised HK$100 (US$12.8) incentive upon completion, (3) a promised HK$200 (US$25.6) incentive upon completion, or (4) a prepaid HK$100 incentive plus another promised HK$100 incentive ("mixed incentive"). Crude risk ratios from log-binomial regression models were used to assess if the 3 incentive schemes predicted higher rates of consent at baseline or retention at 3-month than no incentive. RESULTS:In total, 1246 smokers were enrolled. The overall consent and retention rates were 37.1 and 23.0%, respectively. Both rates generally increased with the incentive amount and offer of prepaid incentive. The mixed incentive scheme marginally increased the retention rate versus no incentive (26.8% vs 20.3%; risk ratio (RR)?=?1.32; 95% CI: 1.00-1.76; P?=?0.053), but not the consent rate (RR?=?1.13; 95% CI: 0.93-1.38; P?=?0.22). Among the consented participants, approximately 50% in the mixed incentive group received the mailed prepaid incentive, who achieved a higher retention rate than the group without incentives (82.8% vs 56.1%; RR?=?1.48; 95% CI: 1.21-1.80; P?

SUBMITTER: Cheung YTD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6610937 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial.

Cheung Yee Tak Derek YTD Weng Xue X Wang Man Ping MP Ho Sai Yin SY Kwong Antonio Cho Shing ACS Lai Vienna Wai Yin VWY Lam Tai Hing TH

BMC medical research methodology 20190704 1

<h4>Background</h4>Monetary incentive is often used to increase response rate in smokers' survey, but such effect of prepaid and promised incentives in a follow-up survey is unknown. We compared the effect of different incentive schemes on the consent and retention rates in a follow-up survey of adult cigarette smokers.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Hong Kong, China. Smokers who completed a non-incentivized baseline telephone smoking survey were invited to a 3-mo ...[more]

PMID: 31272393

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPoor retention in clinical trials can impact on statistical power, reliability, validity and generalisability of findings and is a particular challenge in smoking cessation studies. In online trials with automated follow up mechanisms, poor response also increases resource-need for manual follow up. This study compared two financial incentives on response rates at 6 months follow up, in an online, automated smoking cessation feasibility trial of a cessation smartphone app (Quit Sense).MethodsA study within a trial (SWAT), embedded within a host randomised controlled trial. Host trial participants were randomised 1:1 to receive either a £10 or £20 voucher incentive, for completing the 6-month questionnaire. Stratification for randomisation to the SWAT was by minimisation to ensure an even split of host trial arm participants, and by 6-week response rate. Outcome measures were: questionnaire completion rate, time to completion, number of completers requiring manual follow up and completeness of responses.Results204 participants were randomised to the SWAT. The £20 and £10 incentives did not differ in completion rate at 6 months (79% versus 74%; p=0.362) but did reduce the proportion of participants requiring manual follow up (46% versus 62%; p=0.018) and the median completion time (7 days versus 15 days; p=0.008). Measure response completeness rates were higher among £20 incentive participants, though differences were small for the host trial's primary smoking outcome.ConclusionsBenefits to using relatively modest increases in incentive for online smoking cessation trials include more rapid completion of follow up questionnaires and reduced manual follow up.ImplicationsA modest increase in incentive (from £10 to £20) to promote the completion of follow up questionnaires in online smoking cessation trials may not increase overall response rates but could lead to more rapid data collection, a reduced need for manual follow-up and reduced missing data among those who initiate completing a questionnaire. Such an improvement may help to reduce bias, increase validity and generalisability, and improve statistical power in smoking cessation trials.

Project description:AimFinancial incentives improve response to electronic health surveys, yet little is known about how unconditional incentives (guaranteed regardless of survey completion), conditional incentives, and various combinations of incentives influence response rates. We compared electronic health survey completion with two different financial incentive structures.MethodsWe invited women aged 30-64 years enrolled in a U.S. healthcare system and overdue for Pap screening to complete a web-based survey after receiving a mailed human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kit in a pragmatic trial. HPV kit returners (n = 272) and non-returners (n = 1,083) were allocated to one of two different incentive structures: (1) Unconditional: $5 pre-incentive only (n = 653); (2) Combined: $2 pre-incentive plus $10 post-incentive conditional on completion (n = 702). Chi-square tests evaluated whether survey completion differed by incentive structure within kit return groups or was modified by kit return status. For each incentive-by-kit status group, the cost-per-survey response was calculated as: ([number invited*pre-incentive amount] + [number responses*post-incentive amount]) / number responses.ResultsOverall, survey response was higher in kit returners vs. kit non-returners (42.6% vs. 11.0%, P < 0.01), and survey response was higher in the combined (20.1%) vs. unconditional (14.4%) incentive group (P = 0.01). Kit return status did not modify the association between incentive type and survey response (P = 0.52). Among respondents, time to survey completion did not differ by incentive type among either kit returners or non-returners. Among returners, the cost-per-survey response was similar between groups ($13.57 unconditional; $14.15 combined); among non-returners, the cost was greater in the unconditional ($57.78) versus the combined ($25.22) group.ConclusionA combined incentive can be cost-effective for increasing survey response in health services research, particularly in hard-to-reach populations.

Project description:BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE:Financial incentives can improve initial weight loss; we examined whether financial incentives can improve weight loss maintenance. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Participants aged 30-80 years who lost at least 5 kg during the first 4-6 months in a nationally available commercial weight loss program were recruited via the internet into a three-arm randomized trial of two types of financial incentives versus active control during months 1-6 (Phase I) followed by passive monitoring during months 7-12 (Phase II). Interventions were daily self-weighing and text messaging feedback alone (control) or combined with a lottery-based incentive or a direct incentive. The primary outcome was weight change 6 months after initial weight loss. Secondary outcomes included weight change 12 months after initial weight loss (6 months after cessation of maintenance intervention), and self-reported physical activity and eating behaviors. RESULTS:Of 191 participants randomized, the mean age was 49.0 (SD = 10.5) years and weight loss prior to randomization was 11.4 (4.7) kg; 92% were women and 89% were White. Mean weight changes during the next 6 months (Phase I) were: lottery -3.0 (5.8) kg; direct -2.8 (5.8) kg; and control -1.4 (5.8) kg (all pairwise comparisons p > 0.1). Weight changes through the end of 12 months post-weight loss (Phase II) were: lottery -1.8 (10.5) kg; direct -0.7 (10.7) kg; and control -0.3 (9.4) kg (all pairwise comparisons p > 0.1). The percentages of participants who maintained their weight loss (defined as gaining ≤1.36 kg) were: lottery 79%, direct 76%, and control 67% at 6 months and lottery 66%, direct 62%, and control 59% at 12 months (all pairwise comparisons p > 0.1). At 6 and 12 months after initial weight loss, changes in self-reported physical activity or eating behaviors did not differ across arms. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with the active control of daily texting based on daily home weighing, lottery-based and direct monetary incentives provided no additional benefit for weight loss maintenance.

Project description:Introduction:Three-quarters of homeless people smoke cigarettes. Financial incentives for smoking abstinence have appeared promising in nonexperimental studies of homeless smokers, but randomized controlled trial (RCT) data are lacking. Methods:We conducted a pilot RCT of financial incentives for homeless smokers. Incentive arm participants (N = 25) could earn escalating $15-$35 rewards for brief smoking abstinence (exhaled carbon monoxide <8 parts per million) assessed 14 times over 8 weeks. Control arm participants (N = 25) were given $10 at each assessment regardless of abstinence. All participants were offered nicotine patches and counseling. The primary outcome was a repeated measure of brief smoking abstinence across 14 assessments. The secondary outcome was brief abstinence at 8 weeks. Exploratory outcomes were self-reported 1-day and 7-day abstinence from (1) any cigarette and (2) any puff of a cigarette. Other outcomes included 24-hour quit attempts, nicotine patch use, counseling attendance, and changes in alcohol and drug use. Results:Compared to control, incentive arm participants were more likely to achieve brief abstinence overall (odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 2.89 to 18.3) and at 8 weeks (48% vs. 8%, p = .004). Similar effects were seen for 1-day abstinence, but 7-day puff abstinence was negligible in both arms. Incentive arm participants made more quit attempts (p = .03). Nicotine patch use and counseling attendance were not significantly different between the groups. Alcohol and drug use did not change significantly in either group. Conclusions:Among homeless smokers, financial incentives increased brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts without worsening substance use. This approach merits further development focused on promoting sustained abstinence. Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02565381). Implications:Smoking is common among homeless people, and conventional tobacco treatment strategies have yielded modest results in this population. This pilot RCT suggests that financial incentives may be a safe way to promote brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts in this vulnerable group of smokers. However, further development is necessary to translate this approach into real-world settings and to promote sustained periods of smoking abstinence.

Dataset Information

Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets