Cited by 80Survey Methodology and NonresponseDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Effect of Incentives and Mailing Features on Online Health Program Enrollment

Open access
Alexander, Gwen L., Divine, George W., Couper, Mick P., McClure, Jennifer B., Stopponi, Melanie A., Fortman, Kristine K., Tolsma, Dennis D., Strecher, Victor J. +1 more·2008·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background With the growing use of Internet-based interventions, strategies are needed to encourage broader participation. This study examined the effects of combinations of monetary incentives and mailing characteristics on enrollment, retention, and cost effectiveness for an online health program.Methods In 2004, a recruitment letter was mailed to randomly selected Midwestern integrated health system members aged 21-65 and stratified by gender and race/ethnicity; recipients were randomly pre-assigned to one of 24 combinations of incentives and various mailing characteristics. Enrollment and 3-month retention rates were measured by completion of online surveys. Analysis, completed in 2005, compared enrollment and retention factors using t tests and chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression modeling assessed the probability of enrollment and retention.Results Of 12,289 subjects, 531 (4.3%) enrolled online, ranging from 1% to 11% by incentive combination. Highest enrollment occurred with unconditional incentives, and responses varied by gender. Retention rates ranged from 0% to 100%, with highest retention linked to higher-value incentives. The combination of a $2 bill prepaid incentive and the promise of $20 for retention (10% enrollment and 71% retention) was optimal, considering per-subject recruitment costs ($32 enrollment, $70 retention) and equivalent enrollment by gender and race/ethnicity.Conclusions Cash incentives improved enrollment in an online health program. Men and women responded differently to mailing characteristics and incentives. Including a small prepaid monetary incentive ($2 or $5) and revealing the higher promised-retention incentive was cost effective and boosted enrollment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.028

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [15]Singer E. The use of incentives to reduce nonresponse in household surveys. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, et al., editors. Survey Nonresponse. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  2. [25]Keesling R. Use of web-based data collection to supplement and improve mail survey response rates. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association; 2002 Aug 14; New York NY. www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/ [Google Scholar]
  3. [28]Couper MP. Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q. 2000;64(4):464–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [30]Pew/Internet Latest Trends. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington DC: 2007. www.pewinternet.org/trends.asp. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alexander, G. L., Divine, G. W., Couper, M. P., McClure, J. B., Stopponi, M. A., Fortman, K. K., Tolsma, D. D., Strecher, V. J., & Johnson, C. C.
Affiliations
  • Henry Ford Health (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Group Health Cooperative (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • HealthPartners (US)
Corresponding author
Alexander, Gwen L.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-05
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
382-388
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088879312
Cited by
80
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
24.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (U19CA079689)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
online health program, financial incentives, program enrollment, participant retention, cost-effectiveness, prepaid incentives, gender differences, race and ethnicity, online intervention, integrated health system
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Postal Service, Sex Characteristics, Midwestern United States, Logistic Models, Patient Selection, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review