↓ Skip to main content

Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0126-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane S. Chen, Brian L. Sprague, Carrie N. Klabunde, Anna N. A. Tosteson, Asaf Bitton, Tracy Onega, Charles D. MacLean, Kimberly Harris, Marilyn M. Schapira, Jennifer S. Haas, on behalf of the PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) Consortium

Abstract

Clinician surveys provide critical information about many facets of health care, but are often challenging to implement. Our objective was to assess use by participants and non-participants of a prepaid gift card incentive that could be later reclaimed by the researchers if unused. Clinicians were recruited to participate in a mailed or online survey as part of a study to characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines and practices (n = 177). An up-front incentive of a $50 gift card to a popular online retailer was included with the study invitation. Clinicians were informed that the gift card would expire if it went unused after 4 months. Outcome measures included use of gift cards by participants and non-participants and comparison of hypothetical costs of different incentive strategies. 63.5 % of clinicians who responded to the survey used the gift card, and only one provider who didn't participate used the gift card (1.6 %). Many of those who participated did not redeem their gift cards (36.5 % of respondents). The price of the incentives actually claimed totaled $3700, which was less than half of the initial outlay. Since some of the respondents did not redeem their gift cards, the cost of incentives was less than it might have been if we had provided a conditional incentive of $50 to responders after they had completed the survey. Redeemable online gift card codes may provide an effective way to motivate clinicians to participate in surveys.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,871,907
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#443
of 2,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,767
of 300,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.