Randomized trial of $5 versus $10 monetary incentives, envelope size, and candy to increase physician response rates to mailed questionnaires

Medical Care

Volumn 40, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 834-839

  Halpern, Scott D ^a   Ubel, Peter A ^a,b   Berlin, Jesse A ^a   Asch, David A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Cost effectiveness; Mailed questionnaire; Response rate; Surveys

Indexed keywords

SUGAR;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; PHYSICIAN; POSTAL MAIL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES;

CANDY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; PHYSICIANS; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036716254     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00012     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Asch DA, Jedrziewski KM, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129-1136.
2. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 2001;35:1347-1355.
3. Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:61-67.
4. Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 1993;57:62-79.
5. Tambor ES, Chase GA, Faden RR, et al. Improving response rates through incentive and follow-up: The effect on a survey of physicians' knowledge of genetics. Am J Pub Health 1993;83:1599-1603.
6. Asch DA, Christakis NA, Ubel PA. Conducting physician mail surveys on a limited budget: a randomized trial comparing $2 bill versus $5 bill incentives. Med Care 1998;36:95-99.
7. Shiono PH, Klebanof f. The effect of two mailing strategies on the response to a survey of physicians. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134:539-542.
8. Choi BCK, Pack AWP, Purdham JT. Effects of mailing strategies on response rate, response time, and cost in a questionnaire study among nurses. Epidemiology 1990;1:72-74.
9. Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J. Increasing response rates in physicians' mail surveys: An experimental study. Am J Pub Health 1989;79:638-639.
10. Asch DA, Christakis NA. Different response rates in a trial of two envelope styles in mail survey research. Epidemiology 1994;5:364-365.
11. Berry SH, Kanouse DE. Physician response to a mailed survey: An experiment in timing of payment. Public Opinion Q 1987;51:102-114.
12. Schweitzer M, Asch DA. Timing payments to subjects of mail surveys: cost-effectiveness and bias. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1325-1329.
13. Schlesselman JJ. Case-control studies: Design, conduct, analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University; 1982.
14. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Available at http://www.aapor.org/ethics/stddef.html. Accessed: November 1, 2001.
15. Byar D, Piantadosi S. Factorial designs for randomized clinical trials. Cancer Treatment Reports 1985;69:1055-1062.
16. Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:200-206.
17. Fowler Jr FJ, Collins MM, Albertsen PC, et al. Comparison of Recommendations by Urologists and Radiation Oncologists for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA 2000;283:3217-3222.
18. Folsky D, Click H, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: A comparison of four methods. Health Econ 1997;6:243-252.