TY - JOUR
T1 - A pilot randomized trial of five financial incentive strategies to increase study enrollment and retention rates
AU - Krutsinger, Dustin C.
AU - Yadav, Kuldeep N.
AU - Cooney, Elizabeth
AU - Brooks, Steven
AU - Halpern, Scott D.
AU - Courtright, Katherine R.
N1 - Funding Information:
The project described was supported in part by Grant Number UL1TR001878 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science through the Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT) at the University of Pennsylvania (KRC). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science or the National Institutes of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019
PY - 2019/9
Y1 - 2019/9
N2 - Background: Enrollment and retention difficulties remain major barriers to conducting clinical trials. Financial incentives may promote clinical trial enrollment, however delivery methods to maximize enrollment, maximize retention, and minimize cost remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a single-blind, web-based randomized controlled trial of five financial incentive strategies on enrollment and retention rates in a longitudinal study of advance directives among community-dwelling older adults. Participants were eligible to receive a fixed total financial incentive, but the disbursement amounts at each study timepoint (baseline, 2-weeks, 4-weeks, and 6-weeks) differed between study arms. At each timepoint, participants completed a different advance directive. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes of enrollment and retention. Results: 1803 adults were randomized to one of five incentive strategies: constant n = 361; increasing n = 357; U-shaped n = 361; surprise n = 360; self-select n = 364. Overall, 989 (54.9%) participants elected to enroll in the advance directive study. There were no differences in enrollment rates between the control (constant 53.5%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 54.3%, p = 0.81; U-shaped 57.3%, p = 0.30; surprise 56.9%, p = 0.35; and self-select 52.2%, p = 0.73). There were no differences in retention rates between the control (constant 2.1%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 5.2%, p = 0.09; U-shaped 3.9%, p = 0.23; surprise 2.4%, p = 0.54; self-select 2.1%, p = 0.63). Conclusions: Financial incentive programs for trial enrollment informed by behavioral economic insights were no more effective than a constant-payment approach in this web-based pilot study.
AB - Background: Enrollment and retention difficulties remain major barriers to conducting clinical trials. Financial incentives may promote clinical trial enrollment, however delivery methods to maximize enrollment, maximize retention, and minimize cost remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a single-blind, web-based randomized controlled trial of five financial incentive strategies on enrollment and retention rates in a longitudinal study of advance directives among community-dwelling older adults. Participants were eligible to receive a fixed total financial incentive, but the disbursement amounts at each study timepoint (baseline, 2-weeks, 4-weeks, and 6-weeks) differed between study arms. At each timepoint, participants completed a different advance directive. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes of enrollment and retention. Results: 1803 adults were randomized to one of five incentive strategies: constant n = 361; increasing n = 357; U-shaped n = 361; surprise n = 360; self-select n = 364. Overall, 989 (54.9%) participants elected to enroll in the advance directive study. There were no differences in enrollment rates between the control (constant 53.5%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 54.3%, p = 0.81; U-shaped 57.3%, p = 0.30; surprise 56.9%, p = 0.35; and self-select 52.2%, p = 0.73). There were no differences in retention rates between the control (constant 2.1%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 5.2%, p = 0.09; U-shaped 3.9%, p = 0.23; surprise 2.4%, p = 0.54; self-select 2.1%, p = 0.63). Conclusions: Financial incentive programs for trial enrollment informed by behavioral economic insights were no more effective than a constant-payment approach in this web-based pilot study.
KW - Behavioral economics
KW - Compensation
KW - Enrollment
KW - Incentives
KW - Recruitment
KW - Retention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067191287&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067191287&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100390
DO - 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100390
M3 - Article
C2 - 31431933
AN - SCOPUS:85067191287
SN - 2451-8654
VL - 15
JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
M1 - 100390
ER -