↓ Skip to main content

The effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
The effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0073-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weng-Yee Chin, Edmond PH Choi, Cindy LK Lam

Abstract

The 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. This 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. There 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. It 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02307929 Registered 28 August 2013.

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Psychology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 20 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,673,635
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#571
of 2,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,391
of 277,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 277,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.