Standard Standard

The effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive to improve trial follow up; a randomised study within a trial (SWAT). / Arundel, Catherine; Coleman, Elizabeth; Fairhurst, Caroline et al.
In: F1000Research, Vol. 8, 17.07.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

HarvardHarvard

APA

CBE

MLA

VancouverVancouver

Arundel C, Coleman E, Fairhurst C, Peckham E, Bailey D, Gilbody S. The effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive to improve trial follow up; a randomised study within a trial (SWAT). F1000Research. 2020 Jul 17;8. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.21059.2

Author

Arundel, Catherine ; Coleman, Elizabeth ; Fairhurst, Caroline et al. / The effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive to improve trial follow up; a randomised study within a trial (SWAT). In: F1000Research. 2020 ; Vol. 8.

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive to improve trial follow up; a randomised study within a trial (SWAT)

AU - Arundel, Catherine

AU - Coleman, Elizabeth

AU - Fairhurst, Caroline

AU - Peckham, Emily

AU - Bailey, Della

AU - Gilbody, Simon

N1 - Funding Information: Grant information: This work was conducted as part of the SCIMITAR ਀ Trial which was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (11/136/52). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR of the Department of Health and Social Care. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Arundel C et al.

PY - 2020/7/17

Y1 - 2020/7/17

N2 - Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive (£10 note in addition to a routinely provided £10 voucher) versus no contingent financial incentive, on improving the retention rate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods A two arm 'Study within a Trial' (SWAT) embedded within a host RCT (SCIMITAR+). Participants were randomised to the SWAT using a 2:1 (intervention:control) allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants completing a CO breath measurement at the first SCIMITAR+ follow up time point (6 months). Secondary outcomes were withdrawing from follow-up after contact and time from assessment due date to completion. Analyses were conducted using logistic or Cox Proportional Hazards regression as appropriate. Results A total of 434 participants were randomised into this SWAT. Completion of the CO breath measurement at 6 months was 88.5% (n=247) in the intervention arm of the SWAT and 85.4% (n=123) in the control arm (Difference 3.1%, OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.33, p=0.41). There was also no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants withdrawing from follow-up after contact (intervention n=7 (2.5%), control n=5 (3.5%); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.23-2.44, p=0.64), nor in terms of proximity of 6-month visit completion to due date (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86-1.33, p=0.55). Conclusion It is unclear if contingent financial incentives increased rates of face-to-face follow-up completion within the SCIMITAR+ trial population. However, the sample size of this SWAT was constrained by the size of the host trial and power was limited. This SWAT adds to the body of evidence for initiatives to increase response rates in trials.

AB - Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of a contingent financial incentive (£10 note in addition to a routinely provided £10 voucher) versus no contingent financial incentive, on improving the retention rate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods A two arm 'Study within a Trial' (SWAT) embedded within a host RCT (SCIMITAR+). Participants were randomised to the SWAT using a 2:1 (intervention:control) allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants completing a CO breath measurement at the first SCIMITAR+ follow up time point (6 months). Secondary outcomes were withdrawing from follow-up after contact and time from assessment due date to completion. Analyses were conducted using logistic or Cox Proportional Hazards regression as appropriate. Results A total of 434 participants were randomised into this SWAT. Completion of the CO breath measurement at 6 months was 88.5% (n=247) in the intervention arm of the SWAT and 85.4% (n=123) in the control arm (Difference 3.1%, OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.33, p=0.41). There was also no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants withdrawing from follow-up after contact (intervention n=7 (2.5%), control n=5 (3.5%); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.23-2.44, p=0.64), nor in terms of proximity of 6-month visit completion to due date (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86-1.33, p=0.55). Conclusion It is unclear if contingent financial incentives increased rates of face-to-face follow-up completion within the SCIMITAR+ trial population. However, the sample size of this SWAT was constrained by the size of the host trial and power was limited. This SWAT adds to the body of evidence for initiatives to increase response rates in trials.

KW - Randomized controlled trial

KW - Retention

KW - SWAT

U2 - 10.12688/f1000research.21059.2

DO - 10.12688/f1000research.21059.2

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - F1000Research

JF - F1000Research

SN - 2046-1402

ER -