Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of survey incentive methods to recruit rural cancer survivors into cancer care delivery research studies

  • Brief report
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Unconditional (upfront) incentives are proposed to improve acceptance of cancer research among underrepresented, racial/ethnic minority populations, but few studies have tested incentive strategies among rural cancer survivors. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics of survey respondents, and response rates by arm were compared using Chi-square tests. We compared upfront ($2) and response-based ($10 conditional) incentives in a mailed survey of adult post-treatment rural survivors. Individuals meeting eligibility criteria from the electronic medical record (n = 2,830) were randomized into two incentive arms (n = 1,414 for the upfront arm and n = 1,416 for the contingent arm). Of the total delivered, presumed eligible participants (n = 1,304 upfront arm; n = 1,317 contingent arm), 67.8% were aged 65y+, 49.8% were female, and 95.1% were non-Hispanic white. The response rate for all participants was 18.5%. We received eligible surveys from 281 rural survivors in the first arm (response rate: 21.5%); and 205 surveys in the second arm (response rate: 15.6%). Participants who received the upfront incentive had a higher response rate than those receiving a response-based incentive, X2 (1, 2,621) = 15.53, p < 0.0001. Incentivizing survey completion with an upfront $2 bill encouraged a higher survey response rate; other supplemental strategies are needed to achieve a higher response rate for this population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Data availability

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data are not available.

References

  1. Symens Smith A, Travelyan E (2018) The older population in rural America: 2012–2016. American Community Survey Reports. US Census Bureau, Washington

  2. Henley SJ, Anderson RN, Thomas CC, Massetti GM, Peaker B, Richardson LC (2017) Invasive cancer incidence, 2004–2013, and deaths, 2006–2015, in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties—United States. MMWR Surveill Summ 66(14):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blake KD, Moss JL, Gaysynsky A, Srinivasan S, Croyle RT (2017) Making the case for investment in rural cancer control: an analysis of rural cancer incidence, mortality, and funding trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 26(7):992–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nguyen-Pham S, Leung J, McLaughlin D (2014) Disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in urban and rural adult women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Epidemiol 24(3):228–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Levit LA, Byatt L, Lyss AP, Paskett ED, Levit K, Kirkwood K et al (2020) Closing the rural cancer care gap: three institutional approaches. JCO Oncol Pract 16(7):422–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yabroff KR, Han X, Zhao J, Nogueira L, Jemal A (2020) Rural cancer disparities in the united states: a multilevel framework to improve access to care and patient outcomes. JCO Oncol Pract 16(7):409–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, Gary TL, Bolen S, Gibbons MC et al (2008) Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer 112(2):228–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paskett ED, Cooper MR, Stark N, Ricketts TC, Tropman S, Hatzell T et al (2002) Clinical trial enrollment of rural patients with cancer. Cancer Pract 10(1):28–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Virani S, Burke L, Remick SC, Abraham J (2011) Barriers to recruitment of rural patients in cancer clinical trials. JCO Oncol Pract 7(3):172–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van Gelder MMHJ, Vlenterie R, IntHout J, Engelen LJLPG, Vrieling A, van de Belt TH (2018) Most response-inducing strategies do not increase participation in observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 99:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Griffin JM, Simon AB, Hulbert E, Stevenson J, Grill JP, Noorbaloochi S et al (2011) A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 11(1):81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp xvii, 509

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ashing-Giwa K, Ganz PA (2000) Effect of timed incentives on subject participation in a study of long-term breast cancer survivors: are there ethnic differences? J Natl Med Assoc 92(11):528–532

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bakan J, Chen B, Medeiros-Nancarrow C, Hu JC, Kantoff PW, Recklitis CJ (2014) Effects of a gift certificate incentive and specialized delivery on prostate cancer survivors’ response rate to a mailed survey: a randomized-controlled trial. J Geriatr Oncol 5(2):127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Evans BR, Peterson BL, Demark-Wahnefried W (2004) No difference in response rate to a mailed survey among prostate cancer survivors using conditional versus unconditional incentives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 13(2):277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosoff PM, Werner C, Clipp EC, Guill AB, Bonner M, Demark-Wahnefried W (2005) Response rates to a mailed survey targeting childhood cancer survivors: a comparison of conditional versus unconditional incentives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 14(5):1330–1332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kumar AD, Durham DD, Lane L, Perera P, Rivera MP, Henderson LM (2021) Randomized control trial of unconditional versus conditional incentives to increase study enrollment rates in participants at increased risk of lung cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 141:11–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. CONSORT Group (2021) Transparent reporting of trials. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 15 Dec 2021

  19. Price JH, Dake JA, Jordan TR, Silvestri KS, Ward BL (2006) Effects of small monetary incentives on return rates of a health survey to adults in rural areas. Psychol Rep 98(3):849–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Edelman LS, Yang R, Guymon M, Olson LM (2013) Survey methods and response rates among rural community dwelling older adults. Nurs Res 62(4):286–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Aljassim N, Ostini R (2020) Health literacy in rural and urban populations: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 103(10):2142–2154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rhodes SD, Alonzo J, Mann-Jackson L, Tanner AE, Vissman AT, Martinez O et al (2018) Selling the product: strategies to increase recruitment and retention of Spanish-speaking Latinos in biomedical research. J Clin Transl Sci 2(3):147–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moore JX, Royston KJ, Langston ME, Griffin R, Hidalgo B, Wang HE et al (2018) Mapping hot spots of breast cancer mortality in the United States: place matters for Blacks and Hispanics. Cancer Causes Control 29(8):737–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by grant, 3P30CA012197-43S2, from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Falk was supported by Grant, T32CA122061, Training Grant in Cancer Prevention and Control from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Morris was supported by an NCI K00 fellowship, K00CA245799. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Shared Resource, supported by the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Center Support Grant award number P30CA012197. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Derek Falk

    Present address: Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 10900 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Derek Falk, Ronny A. Bell, Bonny Morris & Kathryn E. Weaver

  2. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Janet A. Tooze

  3. Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Janet A. Tooze, Ronny A. Bell, Carla Strom, Emily Copus, Kelsey Shore & Kathryn E. Weaver

  4. Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, 1005 Dr. DB Todd Jr. Blvd, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA

    Karen M. Winkfield

  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Preston Research Building, Rm B-1003, 2220 Pierce Ave, Nashville, TN, 37232-5671, USA

    Karen M. Winkfield

Authors
  1. Derek Falk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janet A. Tooze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen M. Winkfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronny A. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bonny Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carla Strom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emily Copus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kelsey Shore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kathryn E. Weaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek Falk.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Wake Forest Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB00056939) prior to implementation.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Falk, D., Tooze, J.A., Winkfield, K.M. et al. A comparison of survey incentive methods to recruit rural cancer survivors into cancer care delivery research studies. Cancer Causes Control 33, 1381–1386 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01621-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01621-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation