Suppr超能文献

使用货币激励是否会影响参与调查的程度?46 项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Does usage of monetary incentive impact the involvement in surveys? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

McLaren Health Care, Flint, Michigan, United States of America.

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0279128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279128. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Surveys are an effective method for collecting a large quantity of data. However, incomplete responses to these surveys can affect the validity of the studies and introduce bias. Recent studies have suggested that monetary incentives may increase survey response rates. We intended to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of monetary incentives on survey participation.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to collect studies assessing the impact of monetary incentives on survey participation. The primary outcome of interest was the response rates to incentives: money, lottery, and voucher. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. We calculated the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Review Manager Software (version 5.3). We used random-effects analysis and considered the data statistically significant with a P-value <0.05.

RESULTS

Forty-six RCTs were included. A total of 109,648 participants from 14 countries were involved. The mean age of participants ranged from 15 to more than 60 years, with 27.5% being males, 16.7% being females, and the other 55.8% not reported. Our analysis showed a significant increase in response rate in the incentive group compared to the control group, irrespective of the incentive methods. Money was the most efficient way to increase the response rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.16,1.35; P = < 0.00001) compared to voucher (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.08,1.31; P = < 0.0005) and lottery (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03,1.22; P = < 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Monetary incentives encourage the response rate in surveys. Money was more effective than vouchers or lotteries. Therefore, researchers may include money as an incentive to improve the response rate while conducting surveys.

摘要

背景

调查是收集大量数据的有效方法。然而,这些调查的不完整回复可能会影响研究的有效性并引入偏差。最近的研究表明,金钱激励可能会提高调查的回复率。我们旨在对随机对照试验(RCT)进行系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估金钱激励对调查参与的影响。

方法

系统地检索电子数据库,以收集评估金钱激励对调查参与影响的研究。主要的研究结果是对激励措施的响应率:金钱、彩票和代金券。我们使用 Cochrane 协作工具评估随机试验的偏倚风险。我们使用 Review Manager 软件(版本 5.3)计算率比(RR)及其 95%置信区间(95%CI)。我们使用随机效应分析,并认为 P 值 <0.05 具有统计学意义。

结果

共纳入 46 项 RCT,涉及来自 14 个国家的 109648 名参与者。参与者的平均年龄从 15 岁到 60 多岁不等,其中 27.5%为男性,16.7%为女性,其余 55.8%未报告。我们的分析表明,无论激励方式如何,激励组的回复率均显著高于对照组。与代金券(RR:1.19;95%CI:1.08,1.31;P=0.0005)和彩票(RR:1.12;95%CI:1.03,1.22;P=0.009)相比,金钱是提高回复率最有效的方法(RR:1.25;95%CI:1.16,1.35;P<0.00001)。

结论

金钱激励措施鼓励调查中的回复率。金钱比代金券或彩票更有效。因此,研究人员在进行调查时可以将金钱作为激励措施来提高回复率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7c7e/9844858/2f3ea9770b4f/pone.0279128.g001.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