Incentive delivery timing and follow-up survey completion in a prospective cohort study of injured children: a randomized experiment comparing prepaid and postpaid incentives
Open accessAbstract
Background: Retaining participants over time is a frequent challenge in research studies evaluating long-term health outcomes. This study’s objective was to compare the impact of prepaid and postpaid incentives on response to a six-month follow-up survey. Methods: We conducted an experiment to compare response between participants randomized to receive either prepaid or postpaid cash card incentives within a multisite study of children under 15 years in age who were hospitalized for a serious, severe, or critical injury. Participants were parents or guardians of enrolled children. The primary outcome was survey response. We also examined whether demographic characteristics were associated with response and if incentive timing influenced the relationship between demographic characteristics and response. We evaluated whether incentive timing was associated with the number of calls needed for contact. Results: The study enrolled 427 children, and parents of 420 children were included in this analysis. Follow-up survey response did not differ according to the assigned treatment arm, with the percentage of parents responding to the survey being 68.1% for the prepaid incentive and 66.7% with the postpaid incentive. Likelihood of response varied by demographics. Spanish-speaking parents and parents with lower income and lower educational attainment were less likely to respond. Parents of Hispanic/Latino children and children with Medicaid insurance were also less likely to respond. We found no relationship between the assigned incentive treatment and the demographics of respondents compared to non-respondents. Conclusions: Prepaid and postpaid incentives can obtain similar participation in longitudinal pediatric critical care outcomes research. Incentives alone do not ensure retention of all demographic subgroups. Strategies for improving representation of hard-to-reach populations are needed to address health disparities and ensure the generalizability of studies using these results.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Minor, B. L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O'Neal, L., McLeod, L., Delacqua, G., Delacqua, F., Kirby, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 · Cited by 24,013 · see citing works
George, S., Duran, N., & Norris, K. (2014) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301706 · Cited by 1,603 · see citing works
Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A Meta-Analysis
Church, A. H. (1993) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269355 · Cited by 705 · see citing works
Gustavson, K., von Soest, T., Karevold, E., & Røysamb, E. (2012) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-918 · Cited by 679 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Millar, M. M., Olson, L. M., VanBuren, J. M., Richards, R., Pollack, M. M., Holubkov, R., Berg, R. A., Carcillo, J. A., McQuillen, P. S., Meert, K. L., Mourani, P. M., & Burd, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Utah (US)
- Children's National (US)
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
- Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Central Michigan University (US)
- Children's Hospital Colorado (US)
- Corresponding author
- Millar, Morgan M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2021-10-27
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 233-233
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8549144
- OpenAlex
- W3210504392
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 1.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (UG1HD063108, U01HD049934)
- National Institutes of Health (U24TR001597, UL1TR002538, 5u10hd049983-07)
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U10-HD049983, U01HD049934, UG1HD083171, UG1HD063108, UG1HD083166, UG1HD049981, UG1HD049983, UG1HD050096, UG1HD083170, RL1HD107779, RL1HD107777)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Keywords
- prepaid incentives, participant retention, survey response rates, injured children, hospitalized children, Hispanic children, Medicaid, low-income parents, Spanish-speaking parents, hard-to-reach populations, health disparities, research participation
- MeSH terms
- Child, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Motivation, Parents, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires
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