This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rosoff, P. M. Articles by Demark-Wahnefried, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rosoff, P. M. Articles by Demark-Wahnefried, W.

Response Rates to a Mailed Survey Targeting Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Comparison of Conditional versus Unconditional Incentives

¹ Program of Cancer Prevention, Detection and Control Research, Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center; Departments of ² Pediatrics (Hematology-Oncology), ³ Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, ⁴ Psychiatry, and ⁵ Surgery; ⁶ School of Nursing and Department of Medicine; ⁷ Brain Tumor Center, Duke University Medical Center; and ⁸ Veterans Affairs, Durham, North Carolina

Requests for reprints: Philip M. Rosoff, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, 222 Bell Building, Trent Drive, Durham, NC 27710. Phone: 919-684-3401; Fax: 919-681-7950. E-mail: rosof001{at}mc.duke.edu

Objective: Mailed surveys are widely used to collect epidemiologic and health service data. Given that nonresponse can threaten the validity of surveys, modest incentives are often used to increase response rates. A study was undertaken among childhood cancer survivors and their parents to determine if response rate to a mailed survey differed with provision of immediate versus delayed incentives.

Design: A self-administered survey designed to ascertain health behaviors was mailed to 397 childhood cancer survivors (and their parents if the survivor was <18 years of age). Subjects were randomized into two groups based on gender, age, race, and cancer type. One group received a $10 incentive with their blank survey (unconditional incentive), whereas the other group received the incentive upon receipt of their completed survey (conditional incentive). If children were minors, both the parent and the child received incentives.

Results: No significant differences in response rates were observed with respect to gender, age, race, or cancer type. However, significant differences in response rates were observed between incentive groups, with unconditional incentives yielding significantly higher response rates than conditional incentives for child survivors who were 18 years (64.4% versus 49.0%), as well as younger child survivors (62.5% versus 43.6%) and their parents (64.8% versus 41.5%; all P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The provision of an immediate incentive generated significantly higher response rates to this mailed health survey among childhood cancer survivors and their parents. Given that survey studies are commonly conducted across various pediatric populations, these findings may help inform the design of future pediatric survey research.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. D. Steffen, L. N. Kolonel, A. M. Nomura, F. S. Nagamine, K. R. Monroe, and L. R. Wilkens The Effect of Multiple Mailings on Recruitment: The Multiethnic Cohort Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2008; 17(2): 447 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Bonner, K. K. Hardy, A. B. Guill, C. McLaughlin, H. Schweitzer, and K. Carter Development and Validation of the Parent Experience of Child Illness J. Pediatr. Psychol., April 1, 2006; 31(3): 310 - 321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. M. Morton, J. Cahill, and P. Hartge Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice Am. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2006; 163(3): 197 - 203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]