A comparison of survey incentive methods to recruit rural cancer survivors into cancer care delivery research studies

被引:0
作者
Derek Falk
Janet A. Tooze
Karen M. Winkfield
Ronny A. Bell
Bonny Morris
Carla Strom
Emily Copus
Kelsey Shore
Kathryn E. Weaver
机构
[1] Medical Center Boulevard,Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
[2] Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine,Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences
[3] Wake Forest University School of Medicine,Department of Biostatistics and Data Science
[4] Medical Center Boulevard,Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center
[5] Medical Center Boulevard,Department of Radiation Oncology
[6] Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance,undefined
[7] Vanderbilt University Medical Center,undefined
来源
Cancer Causes & Control | 2022年 / 33卷
关键词
Rural; Survivors; Incentive strategies; Survey research; Disparities;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Unconditional (upfront) incentives are proposed to improve acceptance of cancer research among underrepresented, racial/ethnic minority populations, but few studies have tested incentive strategies among rural cancer survivors. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics of survey respondents, and response rates by arm were compared using Chi-square tests. We compared upfront ($2) and response-based ($10 conditional) incentives in a mailed survey of adult post-treatment rural survivors. Individuals meeting eligibility criteria from the electronic medical record (n = 2,830) were randomized into two incentive arms (n = 1,414 for the upfront arm and n = 1,416 for the contingent arm). Of the total delivered, presumed eligible participants (n = 1,304 upfront arm; n = 1,317 contingent arm), 67.8% were aged 65y+, 49.8% were female, and 95.1% were non-Hispanic white. The response rate for all participants was 18.5%. We received eligible surveys from 281 rural survivors in the first arm (response rate: 21.5%); and 205 surveys in the second arm (response rate: 15.6%). Participants who received the upfront incentive had a higher response rate than those receiving a response-based incentive, X2 (1, 2,621) = 15.53, p < 0.0001. Incentivizing survey completion with an upfront $2 bill encouraged a higher survey response rate; other supplemental strategies are needed to achieve a higher response rate for this population.
引用
收藏
页码:1381 / 1386
页数:5
相关论文
共 99 条
[1]  
Henley SJ(2017)Invasive cancer incidence, 2004–2013, and deaths, 2006–2015, in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties—United States MMWR Surveill Summ 66 1-13
[2]  
Anderson RN(2017)Making the case for investment in rural cancer control: an analysis of rural cancer incidence, mortality, and funding trends Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 26 992-997
[3]  
Thomas CC(2014)Disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in urban and rural adult women: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ann Epidemiol 24 228-235
[4]  
Massetti GM(2020)Closing the rural cancer care gap: three institutional approaches JCO Oncol Pract 16 422-430
[5]  
Peaker B(2020)Rural cancer disparities in the united states: a multilevel framework to improve access to care and patient outcomes JCO Oncol Pract 16 409-413
[6]  
Richardson LC(2008)Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review Cancer 112 228-242
[7]  
Blake KD(2002)Clinical trial enrollment of rural patients with cancer Cancer Pract 10 28-35
[8]  
Moss JL(2011)Barriers to recruitment of rural patients in cancer clinical trials JCO Oncol Pract 7 172-177
[9]  
Gaysynsky A(2018)Most response-inducing strategies do not increase participation in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Clin Epidemiol 99 1-13
[10]  
Srinivasan S(2011)A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial BMC Med Res Methodol 11 81-532