Suppr超能文献

付费是否值得?针对非医师医疗保健专业人员的调查中预付费财务激励和彩票激励的随机试验。

Does it pay to pay? A randomized trial of prepaid financial incentives and lottery incentives in surveys of nonphysician healthcare professionals.

作者信息

Ulrich Connie M, Danis Marion, Koziol Deloris, Garrett-Mayer Elizabeth, Hubbard Ryan, Grady Christine

机构信息

Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

出版信息

Nurs Res. 2005 May-Jun;54(3):178-83. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200505000-00005.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Monetary incentives in survey research may provide important gains from a methodological perspective in the control and reduction of survey error associated with potential nonresponse of participants. However, few studies have systematically investigated the use of monetary incentives or other methods to improve the response rates in the nonphysician clinician population.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate differences in response rates to a mailed self-administered survey of nonphysician clinicians who were randomized to receive a prepaid monetary incentive, a postsurvey prize drawing, or no incentive.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives was conducted from November 2002 to February 2003. Nonphysician clinicians (nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]; N = 3,900) randomly selected to participate in a national ethics-related study were assigned randomly in equal allocations (n = 1,300 [650 NPs, 650 PAs]) to three incentive groups: (a) no incentive; (b) a $5 prepaid token incentive in the initial mailing; or (c) a chance to win one of ten $100 prize drawings upon completion and return of a self-administered survey.

RESULTS

A $5 cash incentive increased survey response rates to an adjusted 64.2%: a 19.5 percentage point increase over the lottery group (44.7% response rate), and a 22 percentage point increase over the control group (42.2% response rate).

DISCUSSION

A nominal cash incentive of $5 yields a significantly higher response rate from nonphysician providers than receiving either a lottery option or no incentive.

摘要

背景

从方法学角度来看,调查研究中的金钱激励可能会在控制和减少与参与者潜在无应答相关的调查误差方面带来重要收获。然而,很少有研究系统地调查金钱激励或其他方法在提高非医师临床医生群体应答率方面的应用。

目的

调查随机接受预付金钱激励、调查后抽奖或无激励的非医师临床医生对邮寄式自填调查问卷的应答率差异。

方法

2002年11月至2003年2月进行了一项关于经济激励的随机对照试验。随机选择参与一项全国性伦理相关研究的非医师临床医生(执业护士[NP]和医师助理[PA];N = 3900)被随机平均分配(n = 1300[650名NP,650名PA])到三个激励组:(a)无激励;(b)初始邮件中包含5美元的预付象征性激励;或(c)在完成并返还自填调查问卷后有机会赢得十个100美元抽奖奖品之一。

结果

5美元现金激励使调查应答率调整后达到64.2%:比抽奖组(应答率44.7%)提高了19.5个百分点,比对照组(应答率42.2%)提高了22个百分点。

讨论

5美元的名义现金激励比抽奖选项或无激励能使非医师提供者的应答率显著更高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验