Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 160(3):295-298; doi:10.1093/aje/kwh190
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coogan, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenberg, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Coogan, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenberg, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Impact of a Financial Incentive on Case and Control Participation in a Telephone Interview

Patricia F. Coogan  and Lynn Rosenberg

From the Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, MA.

The authors investigated the effect of a $5.00 incentive on participation in a telephone interview among cases and controls in an ongoing study of colorectal cancer. Cases and matched community controls were sent a letter introducing the study. One week later, a nurse called to invite the person to participate in a 30-minute telephone interview. After 1 year of data collection (which began in June 2001), the authors began enclosing a $5.00 bill in the initial letter as an incentive. Incentives were mailed to all potential controls. The authors randomized 50% of a subset of cases to receive the incentive. In the year prior to institution of the incentive, 44.2% of 851 controls participated in the interview, as compared with 56.2% of 1,043 controls in the year after the incentive was instituted (p < 0.001). Among cases randomized to receive the incentive (n = 199), 63.8% participated as compared with 68.4% in the nonincentive group (n = 193) (p > 0.05). Among cases aged 60–69 years, the response rate in the incentive group was reduced by 17% (p = 0.03). Thus, among controls, a small monetary incentive appears to promote a feeling of goodwill toward the research. It does not seem to have an equivalent effect among cases, and in the worst case it may insult or annoy some cases who may otherwise have participated.

case-control studies; colorectal neoplasms; epidemiologic methods


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. E. Maxwell, R. Bastani, B. A. Glenn, C. M. Mojica, and L. C. Chang
An Experimental Test of the Effect of Incentives on Recruitment of Ethnically Diverse Colorectal Cancer Cases and Their First-Degree Relatives into a Research Study
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2009; 18(10): 2620 - 2625.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Health PsycholHome page
A. Moyer and M. Brown
Effect of Participation Incentives on the Composition of National Health Surveys
J Health Psychol, October 1, 2008; 13(7): 870 - 873.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.