↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the effects of an offer of a monetary incentive on the rate of questionnaire return during follow-up of a clinical trial: a randomised study within a trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Evaluation of the effects of an offer of a monetary incentive on the rate of questionnaire return during follow-up of a clinical trial: a randomised study within a trial
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0180-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pollyanna Hardy, Jennifer L. Bell, Peter Brocklehurst

Abstract

A systematic review on the use of incentives to promote questionnaire return in clinical trials suggest they are effective, but not all studies have sufficient funds to use them. Promising an incentive once data are returned can reduce the cost-burden of this approach, with possible further cost-savings if the offer were restricted to reminder letters only. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of promising a monetary incentive at first mailout versus a promise on reminder letters only. This was a randomised Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within BUMPES, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of maternal position in the late stage of labour in women with an epidural. The follow-up questionnaire asked for information on the women's health, wellbeing and health service use one year following the birth of their baby. Women who consented to be contacted were randomised to a promise of a monetary incentive at first mailout or a promise on reminder letters only. Women were given an option of completing the questionnaire on paper or on online. The incentive was posted out on receipt of a completed questionnaire. The primary outcome was the overall return rate, and secondary outcomes were the return rate without any chasing from the study office, and the total cost of the vouchers. A total of 1,029 women were randomised, 508 to the first mailout group and 518 to the reminder group. There was no evidence to suggest a difference between groups in the overall return rate (adjusted RR 1.03 (95 % CI 0.96 to 1.11), however the proportion returned without chasing was higher in the first mailout group (adjusted RR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.07 to 1.39). The total cost of the vouchers per participant was higher in the first mailout group (mean difference £4.56, 95 % CI £4.02 to £5.11). Offering a monetary incentive when a reminder is required could be cost-effective depending on the sample size of the study and the resources available to administer the reminder letters. The BUMPES Trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN35706297 , 26(th) August 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 20%
Psychology 6 20%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 30%

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 25 November 2016.
All research outputs
#904,226
of 8,683,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#146
of 869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,950
of 263,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,683,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 263,246 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.