PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Longitudinal cohort studies are critical for understanding the evolution of health-influencing behaviors, such as e-cigarette use, over time. Optimizing follow-up rates in longitudinal studies is necessary for ensuring high-quality data with sufficient power for analyses. However, achieving high rates of follow-up in web-based longitudinal studies can be challenging, even when monetary incentives are provided.
This study compares participant progress through a survey and demographics for 2 incentive structures (conditional and hybrid unconditional-conditional) among US adults using e-cigarettes to understand the optimal incentive structure.
The data used in this study are from a web-based longitudinal cohort study (wave 4; July to September 2022) of US adults (aged 21 years or older) who use e-cigarettes ≥5 days per week. Participants (N=1804) invited to the follow-up survey (median completion time=16 minutes) were randomly assigned into 1 of 2 incentive structure groups (n=902 each): (1) conditional (US $30 gift code upon survey completion) and (2) hybrid unconditional-conditional (US $15 gift code prior to survey completion and US $15 gift code upon survey completion). Chi-square tests assessed group differences in participant progress through 5 sequential stages of the survey (started survey, completed screener, deemed eligible, completed survey, and deemed valid) and demographics.
Of the 902 participants invited to the follow-up survey in each group, a higher proportion of those in the conditional (662/902, 73.4%) than the hybrid (565/902, 62.6%) group started the survey (P<.001). Of those who started the survey, 643 (97.1%) participants in the conditional group and 548 (97%) participants in the hybrid group completed the screener (P=.89), which was used each wave to ensure participants remained eligible. Of those who completed the screener, 555 (86.3%) participants in the conditional group and 446 (81.4%) participants in the hybrid group were deemed eligible for the survey (P=.02). Of those eligible, 514 (92.6%) participants from the conditional group and 401 (89.9%) participants from the hybrid group completed the survey and were deemed valid after data review (P=.14). Overall, more valid completions were yielded from the conditional (514/902, 57%) than the hybrid group (401/902, 44.5%; P<.001). Among those who validly completed the survey, no significant differences were found by group for gender, income, race, ethnicity, region, e-cigarette use frequency, past 30-day cigarette use, or number of waves previously completed.
Providing a US $30 gift code upon survey completion yielded higher rates of survey starts and completions than providing a US $15 gift code both before and after survey completion. These 2 methods yielded participants with similar demographics, suggesting that one approach is not superior in obtaining a balanced sample. Based on this case study, future web-based surveys examining US adults using e-cigarettes could consider providing the full incentive upon completion of the survey.
RR2-10.2196/38732.
This study compares participant progress through a survey and demographics for 2 incentive structures (conditional and hybrid unconditional-conditional) among US adults using e-cigarettes to understand the optimal incentive structure.
The data used in this study are from a web-based longitudinal cohort study (wave 4; July to September 2022) of US adults (aged 21 years or older) who use e-cigarettes ≥5 days per week. Participants (N=1804) invited to the follow-up survey (median completion time=16 minutes) were randomly assigned into 1 of 2 incentive structure groups (n=902 each): (1) conditional (US $30 gift code upon survey completion) and (2) hybrid unconditional-conditional (US $15 gift code prior to survey completion and US $15 gift code upon survey completion). Chi-square tests assessed group differences in participant progress through 5 sequential stages of the survey (started survey, completed screener, deemed eligible, completed survey, and deemed valid) and demographics.
Of the 902 participants invited to the follow-up survey in each group, a higher proportion of those in the conditional (662/902, 73.4%) than the hybrid (565/902, 62.6%) group started the survey (P<.001). Of those who started the survey, 643 (97.1%) participants in the conditional group and 548 (97%) participants in the hybrid group completed the screener (P=.89), which was used each wave to ensure participants remained eligible. Of those who completed the screener, 555 (86.3%) participants in the conditional group and 446 (81.4%) participants in the hybrid group were deemed eligible for the survey (P=.02). Of those eligible, 514 (92.6%) participants from the conditional group and 401 (89.9%) participants from the hybrid group completed the survey and were deemed valid after data review (P=.14). Overall, more valid completions were yielded from the conditional (514/902, 57%) than the hybrid group (401/902, 44.5%; P<.001). Among those who validly completed the survey, no significant differences were found by group for gender, income, race, ethnicity, region, e-cigarette use frequency, past 30-day cigarette use, or number of waves previously completed.
Providing a US $30 gift code upon survey completion yielded higher rates of survey starts and completions than providing a US $15 gift code both before and after survey completion. These 2 methods yielded participants with similar demographics, suggesting that one approach is not superior in obtaining a balanced sample. Based on this case study, future web-based surveys examining US adults using e-cigarettes could consider providing the full incentive upon completion of the survey.
RR2-10.2196/38732.
摘要：
背景：纵向队列研究对于理解影响健康的行为的演变至关重要，比如电子烟的使用，随着时间的推移。在纵向研究中优化随访率对于确保具有足够分析能力的高质量数据是必要的。然而,在基于网络的纵向研究中实现高随访率可能是具有挑战性的，即使提供了货币激励。
目的：本研究通过调查和人口统计学比较了使用电子烟的美国成年人中2种激励结构（有条件和混合无条件条件）的参与者进展，以了解最佳激励结构。
方法：本研究中使用的数据来自一项基于网络的纵向队列研究（第4波；2022年7月至9月），该研究涉及每周使用电子烟≥5天的美国成年人（21岁或以上）。被邀请参加后续调查（平均完成时间=16分钟）的参与者（N=1804）被随机分配到2个激励结构组中的1个（每个n=902）：（1）有条件（调查完成后30美元的礼物代码）和（2）混合无条件条件（调查完成前15美元的礼物代码和调查完成后15美元的礼物代码）。卡方检验通过调查的5个连续阶段（开始调查，已完成的筛选器，视为合格，已完成的调查，并被视为有效)和人口统计。
结果：在每组被邀请参加后续调查的902名参与者中，有条件组(662/902,73.4%)的比例高于混合组(565/902,62.6%)的比例(P<.001)。在那些开始调查的人中，条件组中的643名（97.1％）参与者和混合组中的548名（97％）参与者完成了筛选器（P=.89），每波都使用它来确保参与者仍然合格。在那些完成筛选的人中，有条件组的555名（86.3％）参与者和混合组的446名（81.4％）参与者被认为符合调查条件（P=0.02）。在那些符合条件的人中，514名（92.6%）来自有条件组的参与者和401名（89.9%）来自混合组的参与者完成了调查，并在数据审查后被认为是有效的（P=0.14）。总的来说,与杂种组(401/902,44.5%;P<.001)相比,有条件组(514/902,57%)产生的有效完成更多。在有效完成调查的人中，各组性别没有发现显著差异，收入,种族,种族,区域,电子烟使用频率,过去30天的香烟使用，或先前完成的波浪数。
结论：在调查完成时提供30美元的礼品代码比在调查完成前后提供15美元的礼品代码产生更高的调查开始率和完成率。这两种方法产生了具有相似人口统计特征的参与者，这表明一种方法在获得平衡样本方面并不优越。基于这个案例研究,未来基于网络的调查美国成年人使用电子烟的调查可以考虑在调查完成后提供充分的激励。
■RR2-10.2196/38732。
目的：本研究通过调查和人口统计学比较了使用电子烟的美国成年人中2种激励结构（有条件和混合无条件条件）的参与者进展，以了解最佳激励结构。
方法：本研究中使用的数据来自一项基于网络的纵向队列研究（第4波；2022年7月至9月），该研究涉及每周使用电子烟≥5天的美国成年人（21岁或以上）。被邀请参加后续调查（平均完成时间=16分钟）的参与者（N=1804）被随机分配到2个激励结构组中的1个（每个n=902）：（1）有条件（调查完成后30美元的礼物代码）和（2）混合无条件条件（调查完成前15美元的礼物代码和调查完成后15美元的礼物代码）。卡方检验通过调查的5个连续阶段（开始调查，已完成的筛选器，视为合格，已完成的调查，并被视为有效)和人口统计。
结果：在每组被邀请参加后续调查的902名参与者中，有条件组(662/902,73.4%)的比例高于混合组(565/902,62.6%)的比例(P<.001)。在那些开始调查的人中，条件组中的643名（97.1％）参与者和混合组中的548名（97％）参与者完成了筛选器（P=.89），每波都使用它来确保参与者仍然合格。在那些完成筛选的人中，有条件组的555名（86.3％）参与者和混合组的446名（81.4％）参与者被认为符合调查条件（P=0.02）。在那些符合条件的人中，514名（92.6%）来自有条件组的参与者和401名（89.9%）来自混合组的参与者完成了调查，并在数据审查后被认为是有效的（P=0.14）。总的来说,与杂种组(401/902,44.5%;P<.001)相比,有条件组(514/902,57%)产生的有效完成更多。在有效完成调查的人中，各组性别没有发现显著差异，收入,种族,种族,区域,电子烟使用频率,过去30天的香烟使用，或先前完成的波浪数。
结论：在调查完成时提供30美元的礼品代码比在调查完成前后提供15美元的礼品代码产生更高的调查开始率和完成率。这两种方法产生了具有相似人口统计特征的参与者，这表明一种方法在获得平衡样本方面并不优越。基于这个案例研究,未来基于网络的调查美国成年人使用电子烟的调查可以考虑在调查完成后提供充分的激励。
■RR2-10.2196/38732。
