The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT

Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT
Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT

Background: loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty.

Methods: participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). Interventions: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation.

Results: parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return.

Conclusions: an unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns.

Trial registration: SIFT (ISRCTN76463425). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Effective, Incentive, Questionnaire, Response, Unconditional
1745-6215
Juszczak, Edmund
9267758e-8ab8-44c7-ab14-48ef82fa6b6e
Hewer, Oliver
dc19957a-f2ce-449e-b2bf-699ddc42528e
Partlett, Christopher
ff1ea90b-5254-4a96-809a-14d05b13a0d7
Hurd, Madeleine
d5ad2127-be03-4650-a20e-1d0e553a05dd
Bari, Vasha
017bb3d3-b730-4c85-a683-35459b4b6a6e
Bowler, Ursula
49570c44-66b8-4121-a220-3de7e6cf1a0d
Linsell, Louise
bf220517-49cd-4fbb-8666-19d2a1de1257
Dorling, Jon
e55dcb9a-a798-41a1-8753-9e9ff8aab630
Berrington, Janet
7abdd601-9ade-4b12-a5ef-22fac14ae86f
Boyle, Elaine
0a18aac0-3ba2-4463-a07c-f5957ed4ceb7
Embleton, Nicholas
5c621f1e-cee5-4efa-ac43-8a195410c11c
Johnson, Samantha
9fa6b368-ae2e-4049-b053-b6a7bdd22561
King, Andrew
6ef348a2-6656-4d07-9f0c-b2b631c6037d
Leaf, Alison
380f75d8-ccbd-4538-a45a-c4912fd86fc3
McCormick, Kenny
3ed3da0d-87c7-4c8f-b544-a52bd76b41af
McGuire, William
aed9d25e-dc0a-4813-96e1-156c268e005c
Murray, David
3d2edcb9-2d12-4849-854a-937cd7938dc6
Roberts, Tracy
6964df84-5fec-42a5-aa2f-fb207b6fb2dc
Stenson, Ben
21656459-9347-4ac8-8429-cb11c27dad37
on behalf of the SIFT Investigator Group
Juszczak, Edmund
9267758e-8ab8-44c7-ab14-48ef82fa6b6e
Hewer, Oliver
dc19957a-f2ce-449e-b2bf-699ddc42528e
Partlett, Christopher
ff1ea90b-5254-4a96-809a-14d05b13a0d7
Hurd, Madeleine
d5ad2127-be03-4650-a20e-1d0e553a05dd
Bari, Vasha
017bb3d3-b730-4c85-a683-35459b4b6a6e
Bowler, Ursula
49570c44-66b8-4121-a220-3de7e6cf1a0d
Linsell, Louise
bf220517-49cd-4fbb-8666-19d2a1de1257
Dorling, Jon
e55dcb9a-a798-41a1-8753-9e9ff8aab630
Berrington, Janet
7abdd601-9ade-4b12-a5ef-22fac14ae86f
Boyle, Elaine
0a18aac0-3ba2-4463-a07c-f5957ed4ceb7
Embleton, Nicholas
5c621f1e-cee5-4efa-ac43-8a195410c11c
Johnson, Samantha
9fa6b368-ae2e-4049-b053-b6a7bdd22561
King, Andrew
6ef348a2-6656-4d07-9f0c-b2b631c6037d
Leaf, Alison
380f75d8-ccbd-4538-a45a-c4912fd86fc3
McCormick, Kenny
3ed3da0d-87c7-4c8f-b544-a52bd76b41af
McGuire, William
aed9d25e-dc0a-4813-96e1-156c268e005c
Murray, David
3d2edcb9-2d12-4849-854a-937cd7938dc6
Roberts, Tracy
6964df84-5fec-42a5-aa2f-fb207b6fb2dc
Stenson, Ben
21656459-9347-4ac8-8429-cb11c27dad37

Juszczak, Edmund, Hewer, Oliver, Partlett, Christopher, Hurd, Madeleine, Bari, Vasha, Bowler, Ursula, Linsell, Louise and Dorling, Jon , on behalf of the SIFT Investigator Group (2021) Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT. Trials, 22, [554]. (doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05515-y).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty.

Methods: participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). Interventions: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation.

Results: parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return.

Conclusions: an unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns.

Trial registration: SIFT (ISRCTN76463425). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Text
s13063-021-05515-y - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (839kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 6 August 2021
Published date: 21 August 2021
Additional Information: Funding Information: this paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research (11/01/25) and sponsored by the University of Oxford; ISRCTN registration number ISRCTN76463425.
Keywords: Effective, Incentive, Questionnaire, Response, Unconditional

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 485480
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/485480
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: 09fad402-d354-40b9-8c2c-cc1eccbe1eb6
ORCID for Jon Dorling: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1691-3221

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Dec 2023 17:33
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:17

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Edmund Juszczak
Author: Oliver Hewer
Author: Christopher Partlett
Author: Madeleine Hurd
Author: Vasha Bari
Author: Ursula Bowler
Author: Louise Linsell
Author: Jon Dorling ORCID iD
Author: Janet Berrington
Author: Elaine Boyle
Author: Nicholas Embleton
Author: Samantha Johnson
Author: Andrew King
Author: Alison Leaf
Author: Kenny McCormick
Author: William McGuire
Author: David Murray
Author: Tracy Roberts
Author: Ben Stenson
Corporate Author: on behalf of the SIFT Investigator Group

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×