Increasing response rates in a survey of medicaid enrollees: The effect of a prepaid monetary incentive and mixed modes (mail and telephone)

Medical Care

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 411-414

  Beebe, Timothy J ^a   Davern, Michael E ^b   McAlpine, Donna D ^b   Call, Kathleen Thiede ^b   Rockwood, Todd H ^b  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Cost effectiveness; Financial incentives; Medicaid; Survey research

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICAN; AMERICAN INDIAN; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HISPANIC; HUMAN; MEDICAID; METHODOLOGY; RACE DIFFERENCE; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TELEPHONE;

ETHNIC GROUPS; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MEDICAID; MOTIVATION; POSTAL SERVICE; TELEPHONE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 17144370662     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000156858.81146.0e     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Singer E, Kulka RA. Paying respondents for survey participation. In: Ver Ploeg M, Moffitt RA, Citro C, eds. Studies of Welfare Populations: Data Collection and Research Issues. Panel on Data and Methods for Measuring the Effects of Changes in Social Welfare Programs, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council; 2001:105-128.
2. Edlund C. An effective methodology for surveying a Medicaid population: The 1996 Oregon Health Plan Client Satisfaction Survey. J Ambul Care Manage. 1997;20:37-45.
3. Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Stringfellow VL, et al. Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Med Care. 2002;40:190-200.
4. th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland, OR, 2000. Available from: http:// www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/2000_166. pdf. Accessed January 19, 2005.
5. Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q. 1999;57:62-79.
6. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ. 2002;324:1183.
7. Singer E, Gebler N, Raghunathan T, et al. The effect of incentives in interviewer-mediated surveys. J Off Stat. 1999;15:217-230.
8. Gibson PJ, Koepsell TD, Diehr P, et al. Increasing response rates for mailed surveys of Medicaid clients and other low-income populations. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:1057-1062.
9. Beebe TJ, Britt, H, Call KT, et al. Disparities and barriers to utilization among Minnesota health program enrollees. Final report to the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Minneapolis, MN: SHADAC, Division of Health Services Research and Policy, University of Minnesota; 2003. Available at: http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/ healthcare/documents/pub/dhs_id. Accessed January 19, 2005.
10. American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Available at: http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/standarddefs2004.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2005.
11. Shaw MJ, Beebe TJ, Jensen HL, et al. The use of monetary incentives in a community survey: Impact on response rates, data quality, and cost. Health Serv Res. 2001;35:1339-1346.
12. Gallagher PM, Fowler FJ. Don't forget about in-person interviews. In: Cohen SB, Lepkowski JM, eds. Eighth Conference on Health Survey Research Methods. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2004:155-158.