IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0316534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Northstone
  • Claire Bowring

Abstract

Background: Financial incentives may be important for improving response rates to data collection activities and for retaining participants in longitudinal studies. However, for large studies, this introduces significant additional costs. We sought to determine whether an opt-in or an opt-out option for receiving financial incentives when completing questionnaires offers any cost saving measures. Methods: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children has been ongoing for more than 30 years. It has offered a £10 incentive for returning a partly or fully completed annual questionnaire for >10 years, this is provided by default unless a participant chooses to opt out. For questionnaires completed in 2020 by the original parents recruited to the study and by their offspring, we randomised eligible participants to either opt-out or to opt-in to receiving their vouchers. Logistic regressions determined whether opt-out or opt-in made any difference to the proportion of respondents receiving their vouchers. Results: Respondents are less likely to choose to receive a thank you for their time in the form of a £10 shopping voucher if they are asked to opt in compared to if they are asked to opt out. The odds ratio, adjusted for baseline characteristics was 3.94 (95% Confidence Interval: 3.49, 4.45). There was no difference in response rates according to whether respondents were randomised to the opt-in or opt-out group. Conclusions: ALSPAC now employs an opt-in procedure for respondents receiving their financial incentive when completing a questionnaire. We recommend similar studies that rely on volunteers consider this option if they want to introduce some cost savings without harming overall response rates.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0316534
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316534
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316534&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0316534?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. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      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:pone00:0316534. 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.