Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 785–791 | Cite as

Use of Monetary and Nonmonetary Incentives to Increase Response Rates Among African Americans in the Wisconsin Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System

  • Jennifer Dykema
  • John Stevenson
  • Chad Kniss
  • Katherine Kvale
  • Kim González
  • Eleanor Cautley
Article

Abstract

From 2009 to 2010, an experiment was conducted to increase response rates among African American mothers in the Wisconsin Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Sample members were randomly assigned to groups that received a prepaid, cash incentive of $5 (n = 219); a coupon for diapers valued at $6 (n = 210); or no incentive (n = 209). Incentives were included with the questionnaire, which was mailed to respondents. We examined the effects of the incentives on several outcomes, including response rates, cost effectiveness, survey response distributions, and item nonresponse. Response rates were significantly higher for the cash group than for the coupon (42.5 vs. 32.4%, P < .05) or no incentive group (42.5 vs. 30.1%, P < .01); the coupon and no incentive groups performed similarly. While absolute costs were the highest for the cash group, the cost per completed survey was the lowest. The incentives had limited effects on response distributions for specific survey questions. Although respondents completing the survey by mail in the cash and coupon groups exhibited a trend toward being less likely to have missing data, the effect was not significant. Compared to a coupon or no incentive, a small cash incentive significantly improved response rates and was cost effective among African American respondents in Wisconsin PRAMS. Incentives had only limited effects, however, on survey response distributions, and no significant effects on item nonresponse.

Keywords

PRAMS Incentives Response rates African American Survey methods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was a collaborative undertaking. University of Wisconsin Survey Center (UWSC) members appreciate the many contributions of the Wisconsin PRAMS staff including: Kim González, Data Manager; Katherine Kvale, Project Director; and Eleanor Cautley, Project Coordinator. The cash incentive for this experiment was provided through a one-time grant from the Division of Public Health. The diaper coupons were generously donated by the Kimberly-Clark company. Research support was provided by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is support by the College of Letters & Science. We incorporated comments made by members of the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services during a presentation of the preliminary results, and from Nora Cate Schaeffer. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2010 meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. This publication was supported by CDC Cooperative Agreement Number 5UR6/DP000492-03. Opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

  1. 1.
    Mathews, T. J., & MacDorman, M. F. (2010). Infant mortality statistics from the 2006 period linked birth/infant death data set. National Vital Statistics Reports, 58. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Division of Public Health, Office of Health Informatics. (2009). Wisconsin Births and Infant Deaths, 2008 (P-45364-08). November 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilbert, B. C., Shulman, H. B., Fischer, L. A., et al. (1999). The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Methods and 1996 response rates from 11 states. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 3, 199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shulman, H. B., Gilbert, B. C., & Lansky, A. (2006). The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Current methods and evaluation of 2001 response rates. Public Health Reports, 121, 74–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., et al. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ, 324, 1183–1191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beebe, T. J., Davern, M. E., McAlpine, D. D., et al. (2005). Increasing response rates in a survey of Medicaid enrollees: The effect of a prepaid monetary incentive and mixed modes (mail and telephone). Medical Care, 43, 411–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibson, P. J., Koepsell, T. D., Diehr, P., et al. (1999). Increasing response rates for mailed surveys of Medicaid clients and other low-income populations. American Journal of Epidemiology, 149, 1057–1062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, S. T., & Geidenberger, C. (2010). Comparing incentives to increase response rates among African Americans in the Ohio Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Maternal and Child Health Journal. (Published online: 29 April 2010).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singer, E. (2002). The use of incentives to reduce nonresponse in household surveys. In R. M. Groves, et al. (Eds.), Survey Nonresponse (pp. 163–177). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mizes, J. S., Fleece, E. L., & Roos, C. (1984). Incentives for increasing return rates: Magnitude levels, response bias, and format. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 794–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. (1990). The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 346–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shettle, C., & Mooney, G. (1999). Monetary incentives in U.S. Government surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 231–250.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., & Maher, M. P. (2000). Experiments with incentives in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 171–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryu, E., Couper, M. P., & Marans, R. W. (2006). Survey incentives: Cash vs. in-kind; face-to-face vs. mail; response rate vs. nonresponse error. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berlin, M., Mohadjer, L., Waksberg, A., et al. (1992). An experiment in monetary incentives. In ASA Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 393–398.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., Gebler, N., et al. (1999). The effect of incentives on response rates in interviewer-mediated surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 217–230.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin, E., Abreu, D., & Winters, F. (2001). Money and motive: Effects of incentives on panel attrition in the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 17, 267–284.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kerachsky, S. H., & Mallar, C. D. (1981). The effects of monetary payments on survey responses: Experimental evidence from a longitudinal study of economically disadvantaged youths. In ASA Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 258–263.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS): Home [Internet]. (2010). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Accessed 28 August 2010]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/prams/.
  21. 21.
    The American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2011) Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (7th edn). AAPOR [Accessed 26 Feb 2011]. Available from: http://aapor.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutAAPOR/StandardsampEthics/StandardDefinitions/StandardDefinitions2011.pdf.
  22. 22.
    Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Dykema
    • 1
  • John Stevenson
    • 1
  • Chad Kniss
    • 1
  • Katherine Kvale
    • 2
  • Kim González
    • 2
  • Eleanor Cautley
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin Survey CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Public HealthWisconsin Department of Health ServicesMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations