IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of incentives for research participation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Basel Abdelazeem
  • Kirellos Said Abbas
  • Mostafa Atef Amin
  • Nahla Ahmed El-Shahat
  • Bilal Malik
  • Atefeh Kalantary
  • Mostafa Eltobgy

Abstract

Background: Recruitment plays a vital role in conducting randomized control trials (RCTs). Challenges and failure of proper recruitment lead to early termination of trials. Monetary incentives have been suggested as a potential solution to these challenges. Therefore, we aimed to do a systematic review and analysis to evaluate the effect of incentives on the number of participants willing to consent to and participate in RCTs. Methods: Electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to September 23rd, 2021, using the following keywords: payments, incentive, response, participation, enrollment, randomized, randomization, and RCT. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included trials. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). All analyses were done with the random-effects model. We used Revman software to perform the analysis. Results: Six RCTs with 6,253 Participants met the inclusion criteria. Our analysis showed significant improvement in response rate (RR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.55; P = 0.02) and consent rates (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.85; P = 0.006) when an incentive payment was offered to participants. Even a small amount of incentive showed significant improvement in both consent (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73; P = 0.03) and response rates (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.47; P = 0.004). Conclusion: In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant increases in the rate of consent and responses from participants when offered even small monetary value incentives. These findings suggest that incentives may be used to reduce the rate of recruitment failure and subsequent study termination. However, further RCTs are needed to establish a critical threshold beyond which incentive amount does not alter response rates further and the types of RCTs in which financial incentives are likely to be effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Basel Abdelazeem & Kirellos Said Abbas & Mostafa Atef Amin & Nahla Ahmed El-Shahat & Bilal Malik & Atefeh Kalantary & Mostafa Eltobgy, 2022. "The effectiveness of incentives for research participation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267534
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267534
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267534&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267534?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pmed00:1000368 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kate Northstone & Claire Bowring, 2025. "Does opting in or out affect the take up of incentives in a long running population-based cohort study: A nested randomised trial in ALSPAC," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267534. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.