↓ Skip to main content

Using incentives to recruit physicians into behavioral trials: lessons learned from four studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using incentives to recruit physicians into behavioral trials: lessons learned from four studies
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-3101-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deepika Mohan, Matthew R. Rosengart, Baruch Fischhoff, Derek C. Angus, David J. Wallace, Coreen Farris, Donald M. Yealy, Amber E. Barnato

Abstract

To describe lessons learned from the use of different strategies for recruiting physicians responsible for trauma triage, we summarize recruitment data from four behavioral trials run in the United States between 2010 and 2016. We ran a series of behavioral trials with the primary objective of understanding the influence of heuristics on physician decision making in trauma triage. Three studies were observational; one tested an intervention. The trials used different methods of recruitment (in-person vs. email), timing of the honorarium (pre-paid vs. conditional on completion), type of honorarium [a $100 gift card (monetary reward) vs. an iPad mini 2 (material incentive)], and study tasks (a vignette-based questionnaire, virtual simulation, and intervention plus virtual simulation). We recruited 989 physicians, asking each to complete a questionnaire or virtual simulation online. Recruitment and response rates were 80% in the study where we approached physicians in person, used a pre-paid material incentive, and required that they complete both an intervention plus a virtual simulation. They were 56% when we recruited physicians via email, used a monetary incentive conditional on completion of the task, and required that they complete a vignette-based questionnaire. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02857348.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,925,346
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,849
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,839
of 441,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#109
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.