Tracking and Locating Itinerant Subjects with a Rechargeable Incentive Card: Results of a Randomized Trial

David Farabee, Angela Hawken, Stacy Calhoun, Robert Veliz, Jason Grossman, Yiwen Zhang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

High attrition among research participants undermines the validity and generalizability of field research. This study contrasted two incentivizing methods-money orders (MOs) or rechargeable incentive cards (RICs)-with regard to rates of participants' study engagement and follow-up contact over a 6-month period. Methods: Substance abusers (N = 303) in Los Angeles, California were recruited and randomized to either an MO (control) or RIC (experimental) condition. All participants were asked to call the researchers at the beginning of each calendar month for the ensuing 5 months to update their locator information, even if nothing had changed. Each call resulted in a $10 payment, issued immediately via the RIC system or by MO by mail. Research staff located and interviewed all participants at Month 6. Contact logs assessed level of effort required to locate participants and conduct follow-up interviews. Results: Relative to controls, RIC participants, especially those with low ability to defer gratification, initiated more monthly calls. Six-month follow-up rates did not differ between RIC (75%) and controls (79%), though the RIC condition was associated with an average staff time savings of 39.8 minutes per study participant. Discussion: For longitudinal public health research involving itinerant study participants, the RIC method produces a modest benefit in study engagement and reduced staff time devoted to participant tracking and payments. However, the overall cost-effectiveness of this approach will depend on the pricing model of the card-issuing vendor (which in turns depends on the scale of the project, with per-unit costs falling for larger projects).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)658-663
Number of pages6
JournalSubstance Use and Misuse
Volume51
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 15 2016

Fingerprint

Motivation
incentive
Research
money
staff
Costs and Cost Analysis
Aptitude
Los Angeles
contact
Postal Service
Cost-Benefit Analysis
costs
Public Health
field research
Research Personnel
Interviews
savings
pricing
public health
ability

Keywords

  • Follow-up
  • incentivizing
  • tracking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Tracking and Locating Itinerant Subjects with a Rechargeable Incentive Card : Results of a Randomized Trial. / Farabee, David; Hawken, Angela; Calhoun, Stacy; Veliz, Robert; Grossman, Jason; Zhang, Yiwen.

In: Substance Use and Misuse, Vol. 51, No. 5, 15.04.2016, p. 658-663.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Farabee, David ; Hawken, Angela ; Calhoun, Stacy ; Veliz, Robert ; Grossman, Jason ; Zhang, Yiwen. / Tracking and Locating Itinerant Subjects with a Rechargeable Incentive Card : Results of a Randomized Trial. In: Substance Use and Misuse. 2016 ; Vol. 51, No. 5. pp. 658-663.
@article{4c881c053dad40fb836422422bf1eeaf,
title = "Tracking and Locating Itinerant Subjects with a Rechargeable Incentive Card: Results of a Randomized Trial",
abstract = "High attrition among research participants undermines the validity and generalizability of field research. This study contrasted two incentivizing methods-money orders (MOs) or rechargeable incentive cards (RICs)-with regard to rates of participants' study engagement and follow-up contact over a 6-month period. Methods: Substance abusers (N = 303) in Los Angeles, California were recruited and randomized to either an MO (control) or RIC (experimental) condition. All participants were asked to call the researchers at the beginning of each calendar month for the ensuing 5 months to update their locator information, even if nothing had changed. Each call resulted in a $10 payment, issued immediately via the RIC system or by MO by mail. Research staff located and interviewed all participants at Month 6. Contact logs assessed level of effort required to locate participants and conduct follow-up interviews. Results: Relative to controls, RIC participants, especially those with low ability to defer gratification, initiated more monthly calls. Six-month follow-up rates did not differ between RIC (75{\%}) and controls (79{\%}), though the RIC condition was associated with an average staff time savings of 39.8 minutes per study participant. Discussion: For longitudinal public health research involving itinerant study participants, the RIC method produces a modest benefit in study engagement and reduced staff time devoted to participant tracking and payments. However, the overall cost-effectiveness of this approach will depend on the pricing model of the card-issuing vendor (which in turns depends on the scale of the project, with per-unit costs falling for larger projects).",
keywords = "Follow-up, incentivizing, tracking",
author = "David Farabee and Angela Hawken and Stacy Calhoun and Robert Veliz and Jason Grossman and Yiwen Zhang",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "15",
doi = "10.3109/10826084.2015.1126748",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "658--663",
journal = "Substance Use and Misuse",
issn = "1082-6084",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tracking and Locating Itinerant Subjects with a Rechargeable Incentive Card

T2 - Results of a Randomized Trial

AU - Farabee, David

AU - Hawken, Angela

AU - Calhoun, Stacy

AU - Veliz, Robert

AU - Grossman, Jason

AU - Zhang, Yiwen

PY - 2016/4/15

Y1 - 2016/4/15

N2 - High attrition among research participants undermines the validity and generalizability of field research. This study contrasted two incentivizing methods-money orders (MOs) or rechargeable incentive cards (RICs)-with regard to rates of participants' study engagement and follow-up contact over a 6-month period. Methods: Substance abusers (N = 303) in Los Angeles, California were recruited and randomized to either an MO (control) or RIC (experimental) condition. All participants were asked to call the researchers at the beginning of each calendar month for the ensuing 5 months to update their locator information, even if nothing had changed. Each call resulted in a $10 payment, issued immediately via the RIC system or by MO by mail. Research staff located and interviewed all participants at Month 6. Contact logs assessed level of effort required to locate participants and conduct follow-up interviews. Results: Relative to controls, RIC participants, especially those with low ability to defer gratification, initiated more monthly calls. Six-month follow-up rates did not differ between RIC (75%) and controls (79%), though the RIC condition was associated with an average staff time savings of 39.8 minutes per study participant. Discussion: For longitudinal public health research involving itinerant study participants, the RIC method produces a modest benefit in study engagement and reduced staff time devoted to participant tracking and payments. However, the overall cost-effectiveness of this approach will depend on the pricing model of the card-issuing vendor (which in turns depends on the scale of the project, with per-unit costs falling for larger projects).

AB - High attrition among research participants undermines the validity and generalizability of field research. This study contrasted two incentivizing methods-money orders (MOs) or rechargeable incentive cards (RICs)-with regard to rates of participants' study engagement and follow-up contact over a 6-month period. Methods: Substance abusers (N = 303) in Los Angeles, California were recruited and randomized to either an MO (control) or RIC (experimental) condition. All participants were asked to call the researchers at the beginning of each calendar month for the ensuing 5 months to update their locator information, even if nothing had changed. Each call resulted in a $10 payment, issued immediately via the RIC system or by MO by mail. Research staff located and interviewed all participants at Month 6. Contact logs assessed level of effort required to locate participants and conduct follow-up interviews. Results: Relative to controls, RIC participants, especially those with low ability to defer gratification, initiated more monthly calls. Six-month follow-up rates did not differ between RIC (75%) and controls (79%), though the RIC condition was associated with an average staff time savings of 39.8 minutes per study participant. Discussion: For longitudinal public health research involving itinerant study participants, the RIC method produces a modest benefit in study engagement and reduced staff time devoted to participant tracking and payments. However, the overall cost-effectiveness of this approach will depend on the pricing model of the card-issuing vendor (which in turns depends on the scale of the project, with per-unit costs falling for larger projects).

KW - Follow-up

KW - incentivizing

KW - tracking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961393665&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961393665&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/10826084.2015.1126748

DO - 10.3109/10826084.2015.1126748

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 658

EP - 663

JO - Substance Use and Misuse

JF - Substance Use and Misuse

SN - 1082-6084

IS - 5

ER -