Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Mar 2;13(1):e26.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.1523.

Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: two randomized controlled trials

Zarnie Khadjesari  1 , Elizabeth Murray, Eleftheria Kalaitzaki, Ian R White, Jim McCambridge, Simon G Thompson, Paul Wallace, Christine Godfrey
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: two randomized controlled trials

Zarnie Khadjesari et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Attrition from follow-up is a major methodological challenge in randomized trials. Incentives are known to improve response rates in cross-sectional postal and online surveys, yet few studies have investigated whether they can reduce attrition from follow-up in online trials, which are particularly vulnerable to low follow-up rates.

Objectives: Our objective was to determine the impact of incentives on follow-up rates in an online trial.

Methods: Two randomized controlled trials were embedded in a large online trial of a Web-based intervention to reduce alcohol consumption (the Down Your Drink randomized controlled trial, DYD-RCT). Participants were those in the DYD pilot trial eligible for 3-month follow-up (study 1) and those eligible for 12-month follow-up in the DYD main trial (study 2). Participants in both studies were randomly allocated to receive an offer of an incentive or to receive no offer of an incentive. In study 1, participants in the incentive arm were randomly offered a £5 Amazon.co.uk gift voucher, a £5 charity donation to Cancer Research UK, or entry in a prize draw for £250. In study 2, participants in the incentive arm were offered a £10 Amazon.co.uk gift voucher. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who completed follow-up questionnaires in the incentive arm(s) compared with the no incentive arm.

Results: In study 1 (n = 1226), there was no significant difference in response rates between those participants offered an incentive (175/615, 29%) and those with no offer (162/611, 27%) (difference = 2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3% to 7%). There was no significant difference in response rates among the three different incentives offered. In study 2 (n = 2591), response rates were 9% higher in the group offered an incentive (476/1296, 37%) than in the group not offered an incentive (364/1295, 28%) (difference = 9%, 95% CI 5% to 12%, P < .001). The incremental cost per extra successful follow-up in the incentive arm was £110 in study 1 and £52 in study 2.

Conclusion: Whereas an offer of a £10 Amazon.co.uk gift voucher can increase follow-up rates in online trials, an offer of a lower incentive may not. The marginal costs involved require careful consideration.

Trial registration: ISRCTN31070347; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN31070347 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5wgr5pl3s).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flowchart: study 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
Screen shot of charity donation confirmation page
Figure 3
Figure 3
CONSORT flowchart: study 2
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. CONSORT Transparent Reporting of Trials. 2010. [2011-01-09]. CONSORT 2010 statement http://www.consort-statement.org/
    1. Medical Research Council . Medical Research Council Clinical Trial Series. London, UK: Medical Research Council; 1998. [2011-01-09]. 5vc87ZA7l MRC guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@fre/@....
    1. Singer E, Bossarte RM. Incentives for survey participation when are they "coercive"? Am J Prev Med. 2006 Nov;31(5):411–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.013.S0749-3797(06)00268-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eysenbach G. The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e11. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11. http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e11/v7e11 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bull SS, Lloyd L, Rietmeijer C, McFarlane M. Recruitment and retention of an online sample for an HIV prevention intervention targeting men who have sex with men: the Smart Sex Quest Project. AIDS Care. 2004 Nov;16(8):931–43. doi: 10.1080/09540120412331292507.GB7JD2NHL6FLNKJD - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data