No difference in response rate to a mailed survey among prostate cancer survivors using conditional versus unconditional incentives

Abstract

Mailed surveys are widely used to collect epidemiological and health service data on cancer populations. Nonresponse can threaten the validity of surveys and various strategies, including the enclosure of modest incentives, are often used to increase response rates. A study was undertaken to determine whether response rate to a mailed survey differed with provision of immediate versus delayed incentives. A six-page mailed survey to ascertain dietary supplement use was sent to 1402 men who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Subjects were block randomized into two groups based on age (< or =65 years versus >65 years), race (white versus nonwhite), and disease status (locoregional versus distant). One group received a 30-min prepaid phone card concurrently with their blank survey (unconditional incentive), whereas the other group received the incentive only on receipt of their completed survey (conditional incentive). A 60% overall response rate was achieved, and no differences in response rates were noted between conditional and unconditional incentive groups (overall, as well as within defined age, race, and disease-defined strata). Nonwhites, however, were significantly less likely to respond than whites (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, acceptable response rates to a mailed survey can be achieved in a general population of cancer survivors using modest incentives. Given no differences in response rates using conditional versus unconditional incentives, the decision to provide immediate versus delayed incentives is one that should be considered on a study-specific basis, and a decision based primarily on cost. Other means, however, appear necessary to achieve acceptable response rates among minority group cancer survivors.