Abstract
Study objective: To quantify the increase in mailed questionnaire response attributable to a monetary incentive.
Design: A systematic search for randomised controlled trials of monetary incentives and mailed questionnaire response was conducted. For each trial identified, logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio for response per $0.01 incentive increase. Odds ratios were pooled in a series of random effect meta-analyses stratified by the minimum and maximum amounts offered. Piecewise logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio for response per $0.01 increase given in each of five incentive ranges.
Setting: Populations in several developed countries, predominantly the USA.
Participants: 85 671 randomised participants from 88 trials.
Main results: The pooled odds ratios for response per $0.01 incentive decreased monotonically as the maximum amount of incentive offered increased. The piecewise logistic regression model estimated that for incentive amounts up to $0.50, each additional $0.01 increased the odds of response by about 1% (pooled OR = 1.012, 95%CI 1.007 to 1.016). The effects on response above $0.50 were smaller and decreased monotonically in the ranges: $0.50–0.99, $1–1.99, $2–4.99, $5.00 and over, but remained statistically significant up to $5.
Conclusions: This meta-analysis of the best available evidence shows that monetary incentives increase mailed questionnaire response. Researchers should include small amounts of money with mailed questionnaires rather than give no incentive at all.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (125.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Clarke M. J., Stewart L. A. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses? BMJ. 1994 Oct 15;309(6960):1007–1010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6960.1007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DerSimonian R., Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards Phil, Clarke Mike, DiGuiseppi Carolyn, Pratap Sarah, Roberts Ian, Wentz Reinhard. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1635–1640. doi: 10.1002/sim.1190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards Phil, Roberts Ian, Clarke Mike, DiGuiseppi Carolyn, Pratap Sarah, Wentz Reinhard, Kwan Irene. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1183–1183. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schulz K. F., Chalmers I., Hayes R. J., Altman D. G. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408–412. doi: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.