ASPO Abstracts
A comparison of survey incentive methods among a sample of rural cancer survivors
Category: Survivorship & Health Outcomes/Comparative Effectiveness Research
Conference Year: 2021
Abstract Body:
Purpose: Rural residents face barriers to participation in cancer research and are underrepresented in cancer-
related studies. We compared two incentive methods encouraging survey completion among this survivor
population.
Methods: Eligible individuals included those: 1) aged 18+ identified from Wake Forest Baptist Health's electronic
medical record, 2) with a cancer diagnosis other than non-melanoma skin cancers, 3) >6 months post-definitive
treatment and/or receiving ongoing systemic maintenance therapies, 4) received treatment at any Wake Forest
location from January 2014 to January 2019, and 5) resided in 1 of 7 priority, rural (Rural-Urban Commuting Area
[RUCA] codes 4-10) counties. Participants were mailed a recruitment packet with a paper survey and postage paid
envelopes and completed the surveys online or on paper between February 2020 and April 2020. Participants
were randomly assigned to one of two incentive arms. The first arm included a $2 bill and respondents could opt
into a drawing for one of five $50 gift cards upon survey completion (upfront incentive). The second arm provided
respondents with a $10 gift card upon completion and return of the survey (contingent incentive). A Chi square
test assessed the response rates between the two incentive arms.
Results: A total of 2,831 individuals meeting initial eligibility criteria were randomized (n=1,415 for the upfront and
n=1,416 for the contingent incentive arms). In the first arm, 81 packets were returned, 21 individuals were
deceased, and 2 proxies completed the survey. In the contingent arm, 85 packets were returned, 23 individuals
were deceased, and no proxies completed the survey. A total of 304 surveys were received from the upfront
incentive arm for a response rate of 22.8%, and 216 surveys were received from the contingent incentive arm for a
response rate of 16.2% (P<0.0001).
Conclusions: Among rural cancer survivors, incentivizing survey completion with an upfront $2 bill and a drawing
of a $50 gift card encouraged a slightly higher survey response rate compared to a contingent gift card; however,
the response rate was <25% in both groups. Upfront incentives may be useful, but will likely need to be combined
with other strategies to increase rural participants in cancer research.
Keywords: survey methods, rural, survivor, incentives