Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial

Lydia E Pace, Yeonsoo S Lee, Nadine Tung, Jada G Hamilton, Camila Gabriel, Sahitya C Raja, Colby Jenkins, Anthony Braswell, Susan M Domchek, Heather Symecko, Kelsey Spielman, Beth Y Karlan, Jenny Lester, Daniella Kamara, Jeffrey Levin, Kelly Morgan, Kenneth Offit, Judy Garber, Nancy L Keating, Lydia E Pace, Yeonsoo S Lee, Nadine Tung, Jada G Hamilton, Camila Gabriel, Sahitya C Raja, Colby Jenkins, Anthony Braswell, Susan M Domchek, Heather Symecko, Kelsey Spielman, Beth Y Karlan, Jenny Lester, Daniella Kamara, Jeffrey Levin, Kelly Morgan, Kenneth Offit, Judy Garber, Nancy L Keating

Abstract

Background: Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of population-based BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives.

Methods: Participants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site.

Results: In unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

Conclusions: An up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians' geographic location.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03351803 ), November 24, 2017.

Keywords: Cash cards; Clinician survey; Response rate; Survey incentives.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Enrollment of PCPs in the study and incentive assignment

References

    1. Brtnikova M, Crane LA, Allison MA, Hurley LP, Beaty BL, Kempe A. A method for achieving high response rates in national surveys of U.S. primary care physicians. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202755. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202755.
    1. Cho YI, Johnson TP, Vangeest JB. Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(3):382–407. doi: 10.1177/0163278713496425.
    1. McLeod CC, Klabunde CN, Willis GB, Stark D. Health care provider surveys in the United States, 2000-2010: a review. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(1):106–126. doi: 10.1177/0163278712474001.
    1. Cook JV, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP. Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:160. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-160.
    1. Pit SW, Vo T, Pyakurel S. The effectiveness of recruitment strategies on general practitioner's survey response rates - a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;6(14):76. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-76.
    1. Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Goldstein J, West DW, Ayanian JZ. Randomized trial of $20 versus $50 incentives to increase physician survey response rates. Med Care. 2008;46(8):878–881. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318178eb1d.
    1. Leung GM, Johnston JM, Saing H, Tin KY, Wong IO, Ho LM. Prepayment was superior to postpayment cash incentives in a randomized postal survey among physicians. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(8):777–784. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.021.
    1. Wiant K, Geisen E, Creel D, et al. Risks and rewards of using prepaid vs. postpaid incentive checks on a survey of physicians. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):104. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0565-z.
    1. Halpern SD, Kohn R, Dornbrand-Lo A, Metkus T, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Lottery-based versus fixed incentives to increase clinicians' response to surveys. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(5):1663–1674. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01264.x.
    1. Chen JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:25. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0126-2.
    1. Van Otterloo J, Richards JL, Seib K, Weiss P, SB O. Gift card incentives and non-response bias in a survey of vaccine providers: the role of geographic and demographic factors. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e28108. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028108.
    1. Delnevo CD. Abatemarco D, Steinberg MB. Physician response rates to a mail survey by specialty and timing of incentive. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(3):234–236. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.12.013.
    1. Morgan K, Gabriel C, Symecko H, et al. Early Results from the BRCA Founder Outreach (BFOR) Study: Population Screening Using a Medical Model. Chicago: American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting; may 31–June 4, 2019; 2019.
    1. Wideroff L, Freedman AN, Olson L, et al. Physician use of genetic testing for Cancer susceptibility: results of a National Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2003;12:295–303.
    1. Wideroff L, Vadaparampil ST, Greene MH, Taplin S, Olson L, Freedman AN. Hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics knowledge in a national sample of US physicians. J Med Genet. 2005;42(10):749–755. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2004.030296.
    1. Freedman AN, Wideroff L, Olson L, et al. US physicians’ attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2003;120a(1):63–71. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.10192.
    1. Keating NL, Stoeckert KA, Regan MM, DiGianni L, Garber JE. Physicians' experiences with BRCA1/2 testing in community settings. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5789–5796. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.8053.
    1. Nair N, Bellcross C, Haddad L, et al. Georgia primary care Providers' knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian Cancer syndrome. J Cancer Educ. 2017;32(1):119–124. doi: 10.1007/s13187-015-0950-9.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅