Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1177/01632787241295794
Jonathan B VanGeest, Timothy P Johnson, Evgenia Kapousouz
{"title":"Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices.","authors":"Jonathan B VanGeest, Timothy P Johnson, Evgenia Kapousouz","doi":"10.1177/01632787241295794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surveys involving health care providers continue to be characterized by low and declining response rates (RRs), and researchers have utilized various strategies to increase survey participation. An important approach is to employ monetary incentives to improve survey response. Using a systematic review and analyses of 100 randomized comparisons (published in 48 papers) between monetary incentives and a non-incentive condition, this paper seeks to advance the understanding of best practices for using monetary incentives in clinician surveys. These analyses show even small incentives (≤$2) to be effective in improving clinician response relative to non-incentive subgroups, with diminished returns associated with serial incremental increases above that amount up to amounts greater than $25, at which point there is an appreciable improvement, supporting the use of higher incentives in this population. Cash and direct cash equivalents (e.g., cash cards and checks) produced greater odds of survey participation compared to vouchers, lotteries and charitable contributions, with lotteries and charities being the least effective forms of monetary incentive. Survey mode, timing and ethical considerations are also addressed. Noting the challenges associated with surveying clinicians, researchers must make every effort to improve access to this difficult-to-reach population by implementing appropriate incentive-based strategies designed to improve participation rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787241295794"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241295794","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Surveys involving health care providers continue to be characterized by low and declining response rates (RRs), and researchers have utilized various strategies to increase survey participation. An important approach is to employ monetary incentives to improve survey response. Using a systematic review and analyses of 100 randomized comparisons (published in 48 papers) between monetary incentives and a non-incentive condition, this paper seeks to advance the understanding of best practices for using monetary incentives in clinician surveys. These analyses show even small incentives (≤$2) to be effective in improving clinician response relative to non-incentive subgroups, with diminished returns associated with serial incremental increases above that amount up to amounts greater than $25, at which point there is an appreciable improvement, supporting the use of higher incentives in this population. Cash and direct cash equivalents (e.g., cash cards and checks) produced greater odds of survey participation compared to vouchers, lotteries and charitable contributions, with lotteries and charities being the least effective forms of monetary incentive. Survey mode, timing and ethical considerations are also addressed. Noting the challenges associated with surveying clinicians, researchers must make every effort to improve access to this difficult-to-reach population by implementing appropriate incentive-based strategies designed to improve participation rates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床医师调查中的货币激励:以确立最佳实践为重点的分析和系统回顾。
涉及医疗服务提供者的调查仍然以响应率低和响应率下降为特点,研究人员已利用各种策略来提高调查的参与率。一种重要的方法是采用货币激励来提高调查响应率。本文通过对 100 篇随机比较文章(发表于 48 篇论文中)进行系统回顾和分析,探讨了在临床医师调查中使用货币激励的最佳实践。这些分析表明,即使是小额激励(≤2 美元)也能有效地提高临床医生对非激励亚组的响应度,但随着激励金额的连续递增,当激励金额超过 25 美元时,响应度会逐渐降低,此时的响应度会有明显提高,因此支持在这一人群中使用更高的激励。与代金券、彩票和慈善捐款相比,现金和直接现金等价物(如现金卡和支票)参与调查的几率更大,而彩票和慈善捐款是最无效的货币激励形式。此外,还讨论了调查模式、时间安排和道德方面的考虑因素。研究人员注意到对临床医生进行调查所面临的挑战,因此必须尽一切努力,通过实施适当的激励策略来提高参与率,从而更好地接触到这一难以接触到的人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Mothers With a Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design Study. Single-Case Study of the Feasibility of Parent Training and Change in Parenting in Comparison to Baseline, in Adolescents With a Major Depressive Disorder. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Analysis of Count and Rate Data in Single-case Eperimental Designs: A Step-by-step Tutorial. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1