↓ Skip to main content

Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0126-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane S. Chen, Brian L. Sprague, Carrie N. Klabunde, Anna N. A. Tosteson, Asaf Bitton, Tracy Onega, Charles D. MacLean, Kimberly Harris, Marilyn M. Schapira, Jennifer S. Haas

Abstract

Clinician surveys provide critical information about many facets of health care, but are often challenging to implement. Our objective was to assess use by participants and non-participants of a prepaid gift card incentive that could be later reclaimed by the researchers if unused. Clinicians were recruited to participate in a mailed or online survey as part of a study to characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines and practices (n = 177). An up-front incentive of a $50 gift card to a popular online retailer was included with the study invitation. Clinicians were informed that the gift card would expire if it went unused after 4 months. Outcome measures included use of gift cards by participants and non-participants and comparison of hypothetical costs of different incentive strategies. 63.5 % of clinicians who responded to the survey used the gift card, and only one provider who didn't participate used the gift card (1.6 %). Many of those who participated did not redeem their gift cards (36.5 % of respondents). The price of the incentives actually claimed totaled $3700, which was less than half of the initial outlay. Since some of the respondents did not redeem their gift cards, the cost of incentives was less than it might have been if we had provided a conditional incentive of $50 to responders after they had completed the survey. Redeemable online gift card codes may provide an effective way to motivate clinicians to participate in surveys.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 32%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Psychology 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 4 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,492,754
of 14,030,622 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#247
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,274
of 266,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,030,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them