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

Factors Associated with Delaying and Forgoing Care Due to Cost among Long-term, Appalachian Cancer Survivors in Rural North Carolina

Background

Little research exists on delayed and forgone health and mental health care due to cost among rural cancer survivors.

Methods

We surveyed survivors in 7 primarily rural, Appalachian counties February to May 2020. Univariable analyses examined the distribution and prevalence of delayed/forgone care due to cost in the past year by independent variables. Chi-square or Fisher's tests examined bivariable differences. Logistic regressions assessed the odds of delayed/forgone care due to cost.

Results

Respondents (n=428), aged 68.6 years on average (SD: 12.0), were 96.3% non-Hispanic white and 49.8% female; 25.0% reported delayed/forgone care due to cost. The response rate was 18.5%. The proportion of delayed/forgone care for those aged 18-64 years was 46.7% and 15.0% for those aged 65+ years (P<0.0001). Females aged 65+ years (OR: 2.00; CI: 1.02-3.93) had double the odds of delayed/forgone care due to cost compared to males aged 65+ years.

Conclusion

About one in four rural cancer survivors reported delayed/forgone care due to cost, with rates approaching 50% in survivors aged <65 years.

Impact

Clinical implications indicate the need to: 1) ask about the impact of care costs, and 2) provide supportive services to mitigate effects of treatment costs, particularly for younger and female survivors.

Impact of different financial incentive structures on a web-based health survey: do timing and amount matter?

Aim

Financial incentives improve response to electronic health surveys, yet little is known about how unconditional incentives (guaranteed regardless of survey completion), conditional incentives, and various combinations of incentives influence response rates. We compared electronic health survey completion with two different financial incentive structures.

Methods

We invited women aged 30-64 years enrolled in a U.S. healthcare system and overdue for Pap screening to complete a web-based survey after receiving a mailed human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kit in a pragmatic trial. HPV kit returners (n = 272) and non-returners (n = 1,083) were allocated to one of two different incentive structures: (1) Unconditional: $5 pre-incentive only (n = 653); (2) Combined: $2 pre-incentive plus $10 post-incentive conditional on completion (n = 702). Chi-square tests evaluated whether survey completion differed by incentive structure within kit return groups or was modified by kit return status. For each incentive-by-kit status group, the cost-per-survey response was calculated as: ([number invited*pre-incentive amount] + [number responses*post-incentive amount]) / number responses.

Results

Overall, survey response was higher in kit returners vs. kit non-returners (42.6% vs. 11.0%, P < 0.01), and survey response was higher in the combined (20.1%) vs. unconditional (14.4%) incentive group (P = 0.01). Kit return status did not modify the association between incentive type and survey response (P = 0.52). Among respondents, time to survey completion did not differ by incentive type among either kit returners or non-returners. Among returners, the cost-per-survey response was similar between groups ($13.57 unconditional; $14.15 combined); among non-returners, the cost was greater in the unconditional ($57.78) versus the combined ($25.22) group.

Conclusion

A combined incentive can be cost-effective for increasing survey response in health services research, particularly in hard-to-reach populations.