Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Cash Lottery on Response Rates to an Online Health Survey among Members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons: A Randomized Experiment

  • Quantitative Research
  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objectives of the study were 1) to assess the effect of cash lottery on participation rates in a web-based study of physical activity and joint health and 2) to compare recruitment via direct e-mail versus advertisement in an online newsletter.

Methods

A sample of 1,150 individuals, randomly selected from a database of members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP), was e-mailed a request to participate in an online survey, with follow-up e-mails after 1 and 2 weeks. The sample was randomly split into two groups. Half the sample was offered entry into a cash draw with a $500 grand prize and five $100 prizes, whereas the other half was not offered any incentive. In addition, a brief advertisement about the survey (without an incentive) was placed in an online newsletter that was circulated to 14,000 randomly selected CARP members.

Results

In the incentive group, 305 (53.0%) clicked on the hyperlink and visited the website and 84 (14.6%) completed the survey. In the group who received no incentive, 280 (48.7%) clicked on the link and 59 (10.3%) completed the survey. Of those who received the online newsletter, 492 (3.5%) visited the website and 106 (0.76%) completed the survey.

Conclusion

A relatively modest financial incentive in the form of a cash lottery significantly increased participation rates in an online health survey. Recruitment through a newsletter advertisement had a very low yield compared to direct e-mail.

Résumé

Objectifs

1) Analyser l’effet d’un tirage de prix en argent comptant sur les taux de participation à une étude en ligne sur l’activité physique et la santé articulaire et 2) comparer le recrutement direct par courriel à la publication d’une annonce dans un bulletin en ligne.

Méthode

Nous avons demandé par courriel à un échantillon de 1150 personnes, sélectionnées au hasard dans la base de données des membres de l’Association canadienne des individus retraités (ACIR), de participer à un sondage en ligne, et nous leur avons envoyé des messages de suivi après 1 et 2 semaines. L’échantillon a été divisé en deux groupes de façon aléatoire. La moitié de l’échantillon s’est fait proposer de participer à un tirage de prix en argent comptant (un grand prix de 500 $ et cinq prix de 100 $), tandis que l’autre moitié n’a reçu aucune incitation. Par ailleurs, une brève annonce à propos du sondage (sans mesure incitative) a été publiée dans un bulletin en ligne envoyé à 14 000 membres de l’ACIR sélectionnés au hasard.

Résultats

Dans le groupe ayant reçu une incitation, 305 personnes (53 %) ont cliqué sur l’hyperlien et visité le site Web, et 84 (14,6 %) ont répondu au sondage. Dans le groupe n’ayant pas reçu d’incitation, 280 personnes (48,7 %) ont cliqué sur le lien et 59 (10,3 %) ont répondu au sondage. Parmi les personnes ayant reçu le bulletin en ligne, 492 (3,5 %) ont visité le site Web et 106 (0,76 %) ont répondu au sondage.

Conclusion

Une incitation financière relativement mineure — le tirage de prix en argent comptant — a significativement accru le taux de participation à un sondage en ligne sur la santé. Le recrutement au moyen d’une annonce dans un bulletin a donné des résultats beaucoup moins bons que l’envoi direct de courriels.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dillman DA, Smith JD, Christian LM. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 1993;57(1):62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. James JM, Bolstein R. Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 1992;56(4):442–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Warriner K, Goyder J, Gjertsen H, Hohner P, McSpurren K. Charities, No; Lotteries, No; Cash, Yes: Main Effects and Interactions in a Canadian Incentives Experiment. Public Opin Q 1996;60(4):542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Spry VM, Hovell MF, Sallis JG, Hofsteter CR, Elder JP, Molgaard CA. Recruiting survey respondents to mailed surveys: Controlled trials of incentives and prompts. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130(1):166–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marrett LD, Kreiger N, Dodds L, Hilditch S. The effect on response rates of offering a small incentive with a mailed questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 1992;2(5):745–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kalantar JS, Talley NJ. The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: A randomized study. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52(11):1117–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Whiteman MK, Langenberg P, Kjerulff K, McCarter R, Flaws JA. A randomized trial of incentives to improve response rates to a mailed women’s health questionnaire. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2003;12(8):821–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roberts LM, Wilson S, Roalfe A, Bridge P. A randomised controlled trial to determine the effect on response of including a lottery incentive in health surveys. BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4(1):30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tamayo-Sarver JH, Baker DW. Comparison of responses to a US 2 dollar bill versus a chance to win 250 US dollars in a mail survey of emergency physicians. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11(8):888–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Göritz AS. Incentives in Web-based studies: Methodological issues and a review. Int J Internet Sci 2006;1(1):58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brennan M, Rae N, Parackal M. Survey based experimental research via the web: Some observations. Marketing Bull 1999;10:57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cobanoglu C, Cobanoglu N. The effect of incentives in web surveys: Application and ethical considerations. Int J Market Res 2003;45(4):475–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Porter S, Whitcomb ME. The impact of lottery incentive on student survey response rates. Res Higher Educ 2003;44(4):389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Göritz AS. Cash lotteries as incentives in online panels. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2006;24(4):445–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Göritz AS. Lotteries as incentives in longitudinal web studies. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2007;25(1):99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bosnjak M, Tuten TL. Prepaid and promised incentives in web surveys: Experiment. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2003;21(2):208–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Tornetta P, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison (2). J Med Internet Res 2004;6(3):e30.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Akl EA, Maroun N, Klocke RA, Montori V, Schunemann HJ. Electronic mail was not better than postal mail for surveying residents and faculty. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(4):425–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mehta R, Sivadas E. Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. J Mark Res Soc 1995;37:429–39.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Koo M, Skinner H. Challenges of internet recruitment: A case study with disappointing results. J Med Internet Res 2005;7(1):e6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Paul Doerfling MBA,  Jacek A. Kopec PhD (Associate Professor), Matthew H. Liang MD & John M. Esdaile MD

  2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Jacek A. Kopec PhD (Associate Professor)

  3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

    Matthew H. Liang MD

  4. Division of Rheumatology, UBC, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    John M. Esdaile MD

Authors
  1. Paul Doerfling MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacek A. Kopec PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew H. Liang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John M. Esdaile MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacek A. Kopec PhD.

Additional information

Source of Support: The study was funded by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Kopec was supported by a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Senior Scholar Award.

Conflict of Interest: None to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doerfling, P., Kopec, J.A., Liang, M.H. et al. The Effect of Cash Lottery on Response Rates to an Online Health Survey among Members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons: A Randomized Experiment. Can J Public Health 101, 251–254 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404384

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404384

Key words

Mots clés

Search

Navigation