Cited by 39Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

Effects of a Financial Incentive on Health Researchers’ Response to an Online Survey: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Wilson, Paul M, Petticrew, Mark, Calnan, Mike, Nazareth, Irwin·2010·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nonresponse to questionnaires can affect the validity of surveys and introduce bias. Offering financial incentives can increase response rates to postal questionnaires, but the effect of financial incentives on response rates to online surveys is less clear. OBJECTIVE: As part of a survey, we aimed to test whether knowledge of a financial incentive would increase the response rate to an online questionnaire. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 485 UK-based principal investigators of publicly funded health services and population health research. Participants were contacted by email and invited to complete an online questionnaire via an embedded URL. Participants were randomly allocated to groups with either "knowledge of" or "no knowledge of" a financial incentive ( pound10 Amazon gift voucher) to be provided on completion of the survey. At the end of the study, gift vouchers were given to all participants who completed the questionnaire regardless of initial randomization status. Four reminder emails (sent from the same email address as the initial invitation) were sent out to nonrespondents at one, two, three, and four weeks; a fifth postal reminder was also undertaken. The primary outcome measure for the trial was the response rate one week after the second reminder. Response rate was also measured at the end of weeks one, two, three, four, and five, and after a postal reminder was sent. RESULTS: In total, 243 (50%) questionnaires were returned (232 completed, 11 in which participation was declined). One week after the second reminder, the response rate in the "knowledge" group was 27% (66/244) versus 20% (49/241) in the "no knowledge" group (chi(2) (1) = 3.0, P = .08). The odds ratio for responding among those with knowledge of an incentive was 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 - 2.21). At the third reminder, participants in the "no knowledge" group were informed about the incentive, ending the randomized element of the study. However we continued to follow up all participants, and from reminder three onwards, no significant differences were observed in the response rates of the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of a financial incentive did not significantly increase the response rate to an online questionnaire. Future surveys should consider including a randomized element to further test the utility of offering incentives of other types and amounts to participate in online questionnaires. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN59912797; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN59912797 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5iPPLbT7s).

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 · 10.2196/jmir.1251

Cites

3 of 3 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M., & Nazareth, I.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Paul M
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2010-05-10
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
e13
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104448204
Cited by
39
References
3
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
11.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
financial incentives, online surveys, survey response rates, nonresponse, medical researchers, principal investigators, survey participation, research funding agencies, population health research, survey bias, informed consent
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Motivation, Online Systems, Population Surveillance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Patient Selection, Internet, Electronic Mail

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