Suppr超能文献

预付现金卡与支票作为参与临床医生调查激励措施的比较:一项试验内研究。

Comparison of up-front cash cards and checks as incentives for participation in a clinician survey: a study within a trial.

机构信息

Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Aug 17;20(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01086-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evidence is needed regarding effective incentive strategies to increase clinician survey response rates. Cash cards are increasingly used as survey incentives; they are appealing because of their convenience and because in some cases their value can be reclaimed by investigators if not used. However, their effectiveness in clinician surveys is not known. In this study within the BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study, a clinical trial of population-based BRCA1/2 mutation screening, we compared the use of upfront cash cards requiring email activation versus checks as clinician survey incentives.

METHODS

Participants receiving BRCA1/2 testing in the BFOR study could elect to receive their results from their primary care provider (PCP, named by the patient) or from a geneticist associated with the study. In order to understand PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, experiences and willingness to disclose results we mailed paper surveys to the first 501 primary care providers (PCPs) in New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia who were nominated by study participants to disclose their BRCA1/2 mutation results obtained through the study. We used alternating assignment stratified by city to assign the first 303 clinicians to receive a $50 up-front incentive as a cash card (N = 155) or check (N = 148). The cash card required PCPs to send an activation email in order to be used. We compared response rates by incentive type, adjusting for PCP characteristics and study site.

RESULTS

In unadjusted analyses, PCPs who received checks were more likely to respond to the survey than those who received cash cards (54.1% versus 41.9%, p = 0.046); this remained true when we adjusted for provider characteristics (OR for checks 1.61, 95% CI 1.01, 2.59). No other clinician characteristics had a statistically significant association with response rates in adjusted analyses. When we included an interaction term for incentive type and city, the favorable impact of checks on response rates was evident only in Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

CONCLUSIONS

An up-front cash card incentive requiring email activation may be less effective in eliciting clinician responses than up-front checks. However, the benefit of checks for clinician response rates may depend on clinicians' geographic location.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03351803 ), November 24, 2017.

摘要

背景

需要有证据表明有效的激励策略可以提高临床医生调查的回复率。现金卡作为调查激励措施越来越受欢迎;它们很有吸引力,因为它们很方便,而且在某些情况下,如果未使用,调查人员可以收回其价值。但是,它们在临床医生调查中的效果尚不清楚。在 BRCA 创始人外展(BFOR)研究中的这项研究中,这是一项基于人群的 BRCA1/2 突变筛查的临床试验,我们比较了使用需要电子邮件激活的预付现金卡与检查作为临床医生调查激励措施的效果。

方法

在 BFOR 研究中接受 BRCA1/2 测试的参与者可以选择从他们的初级保健提供者(PCP,由患者指定)或与研究相关的遗传学家那里获得结果。为了了解 PCP 的知识,态度,经验以及愿意披露结果的意愿,我们向纽约,波士顿,洛杉矶和费城的前 501 名初级保健提供者(PCP)寄出了纸质调查问卷,这些 PCP 是由研究参与者提名的,他们将通过研究获得的 BRCA1/2 突变结果告知他们。我们使用按城市分层的交替分配,将前 303 位临床医生分配为接收 50 美元的预付激励,一种是现金卡(N=155),另一种是检查(N=148)。现金卡要求 PCP 发送激活电子邮件才能使用。我们比较了不同激励类型的响应率,并根据 PCP 特征和研究地点进行了调整。

结果

在未调整的分析中,收到检查的 PCP 比收到现金卡的 PCP 更有可能对调查做出回应(54.1%对 41.9%,p=0.046);当我们根据提供者特征进行调整时,这仍然是正确的(检查的 OR 为 1.61,95%CI 为 1.01,2.59)。在调整后的分析中,没有其他临床医生特征与响应率有统计学显着关联。当我们包括激励类型和城市的交互项时,检查对响应率的有利影响仅在洛杉矶和费城明显。

结论

需要电子邮件激活的预付现金卡激励措施可能不如预付检查有效,可激发临床医生的回应。但是,检查对临床医生的响应率的好处可能取决于临床医生的地理位置。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT03351803),2017 年 11 月 24 日。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/40b4/7430023/c4d9c0322807/12874_2020_1086_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验