Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Unconditional and conditional incentives differentially improved general practitioners' participation in an online survey: randomized controlled trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Unconditional and conditional incentives differentially improved general practitioners' participation in an online survey: randomized controlled trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Unconditional and conditional incentives differentially improved general practitioners' participation in an online survey: randomized controlled trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Unconditional and conditional incentives differentially improved general practitioners' participation in an online survey: randomized controlled trial
2015
Overview
To compare the impact of unconditional and conditional financial incentives on response rates among Australian general practitioners invited by mail to participate in an online survey about cancer care and to investigate possible differential response bias between incentive groups.
Australian general practitioners were randomly allocated to unconditional incentive (book voucher mailed with letter of invitation), conditional incentive (book voucher mailed on completion of the online survey), or control (no incentive). Nonresponders were asked to complete a small subset of questions from the online survey.
Among 3,334 eligible general practitioners, significantly higher response rates were achieved in the unconditional group (167 of 1,101, 15%) compared with the conditional group (118 of 1,111, 11%) (P = 0.0014), and both were significantly higher than the control group (74 of 1,122, 7%; both P < 0.001). Although more positive opinions about cancer care were expressed by online responders compared with nonresponders, there was no evidence that the magnitude of difference varied by the incentive group. The incremental cost for each additional 1% increase above the control group response rate was substantially higher for the unconditional incentive group compared with the conditional incentive group.
Both unconditional and conditional financial incentives significantly increased response with no evidence of differential response bias. Although unconditional incentives had the largest effect, the conditional approach was more cost-effective.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
Subject
/ Bias
/ Cancer
/ Community Participation - psychology
/ Community Participation - statistics & numerical data
/ Community-Based Participatory Research - methods
/ Community-Based Participatory Research - organization & administration
/ Community-Based Participatory Research - statistics & numerical data
/ Female
/ General Practitioners - statistics & numerical data
/ Health Surveys - utilization
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Online Systems - utilization
/ Studies
/ Surveys
