To Test the Effectiveness of Different Incentive Models for Increasing the Follow-up Response Rate in the Current Smoker SubjectNCT03297866
Effectiveness of Different Incentive Models in Booster up the Second Follow up Response Rate
An observational study of To Test the Effectiveness of Different Incentive Models for Increasing the Follow-up Response Rate in the Current Smoker Subject, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
Trial summary
Aim to test the effectiveness of different incentive models for increasing the follow-up response rate in the current smoker subject. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 15 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- To Test the Effectiveness of Different Incentive Models for Increasing the Follow-up Response Rate in the Current Smoker Subject
- How many people
- 1,246 participants
- Where
- 1 siteHong Kong
- Study dates
- 14 Jul 2017to 30 Apr 2018
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 15 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: All Hong Kong residents
Who may be able to join
- Aged 15 or above
- Cantonese or Mandarin speakers
Who cannot join
- Unable to provide a consent form
- Speak language other than Cantonese and Mandarin
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Hong Kong1 site
Public Opinion Programme, the University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
About this study
Aim to test the effectiveness of different incentive models for increasing the follow-up response rate in the current smoker subject.
Read the detailed description
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistic Department, 10.5% of the Hong Kong population who aged 15 years or above are daily smokers (Thematic Household Survey Report - Report No. 59, 2016). The smoking prevalence was estimated from a thematic household survey that has been conducted every 2 or 3 years. Another population-based survey related to tobacco control is the Tobacco Control Policy-related Survey conducted by the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health and the University of Hong Kong. Both surveys were in a cross-sectional design and no follow-up was done. A cohort study with follow-up data could provide more insights for the causal relationship. However, most people are not willing to complete follow-up survey and the response rate is often low (Mellahi, 2016). The low survey response rate could lead to statistically bias in the research funding (Pit, 2014). Therefore, cohort surveys need to provide attractive monetary incentive to the interviewee to increase the response rate (Pit, 2014).
This study aims to assess and compare the 3-month response rate of a follow-up survey due to different financial incentive schemes. The findings will be used for a feasibility assessment of future cohort studies of evaluating tobacco control measures and public opinion, and exploration of appropriate incentive scheme.
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Incentive schemes 1 | No incentive will be given after completing the follow-up survey | |
| Incentive schemes 2 | Receiving $100 supermarket coupon after completing the follow-up survey | |
| Incentive schemes 3 | Receiving $200 supermarket coupon after completing the follow-up survey | |
| Incentive schemes 4 | Receiving $100 supermarket coupon before completing the follow-up survey and another $100 supermarket coupon after completing the follow-up survey |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Proportion of respondents who will complete the 3-month follow-up
Proportion of respondents who will complete the 3-month follow-up
Measured: Finish all telephone survey by Jan 2018
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Sep 2017
- Study start14 Jul 2017
- Primary completion31 Jan 2018
- Study completion30 Apr 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for To Test the Effectiveness of Different Incentive Models for Increasing the Follow-up Response Rate in the Current Smoker SubjectStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The University of Hong KongThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 1,246 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Wang Man-Ping, The University of Hong Kong
- Investigators
- Man Ping Wang, PhD, Principal investigator, Study Principal Investigator
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03297866
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Incentive schemes 2017
- Status last verified
- May 2018
- First submitted
- 26 Sep 2017
- Last updated
- 22 May 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Cheung YTD, Weng X, Wang MP, Ho SY, Kwong ACS, Lai VWY, Lam TH. Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jul 4;19(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0786-9.
PubMed 31272393
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 May 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness of Different Incentive Models in Booster up the Second Follow up Response Rate
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03297866
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Incentive schemes 2017
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,246 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 14 Jul 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Apr 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Sep 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Aim to test the effectiveness of different incentive models for increasing the follow-up response rate in the current smoker subject.
Detailed description
According to the Hong Kong Census and Statistic Department, 10.5% of the Hong Kong population who aged 15 years or above are daily smokers (Thematic Household Survey Report - Report No. 59, 2016). The smoking prevalence was estimated from a thematic household survey that has been conducted every 2 or 3 years. Another population-based survey related to tobacco control is the Tobacco Control Policy-related Survey conducted by the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health and the University of Hong Kong. Both surveys were in a cross-sectional design and no follow-up was done. A cohort study with follow-up data could provide more insights for the causal relationship. However, most people are not willing to complete follow-up survey and the response rate is often low (Mellahi, 2016). The low survey response rate could lead to statistically bias in the research funding (Pit, 2014). Therefore, cohort surveys need to provide attractive monetary incentive to the interviewee to increase the response rate (Pit, 2014).
This study aims to assess and compare the 3-month response rate of a follow-up survey due to different financial incentive schemes. The findings will be used for a feasibility assessment of future cohort studies of evaluating tobacco control measures and public opinion, and exploration of appropriate incentive scheme.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Incentive schemes 1 | – | –No incentive will be given after completing the follow-up survey |
| Incentive schemes 2 | – | –Receiving $100 supermarket coupon after completing the follow-up survey |
| Incentive schemes 3 | – | –Receiving $200 supermarket coupon after completing the follow-up survey |
| Incentive schemes 4 | – | –Receiving $100 supermarket coupon before completing the follow-up survey and another $100 supermarket coupon after completing the follow-up survey |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 15 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- All Hong Kong residents
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Aged 15 or above
- Cantonese or Mandarin speakers
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Unable to provide a consent form
- Speak language other than Cantonese and Mandarin
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Proportion of respondents who will complete the 3-month follow-up
Time frame: Finish all telephone survey by Jan 2018
Proportion of respondents who will complete the 3-month follow-up
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 May 2018.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 31272393Cheung YTD, Weng X, Wang MP, Ho SY, Kwong ACS, Lai VWY, Lam TH. Effect of prepaid and promised financial incentive on follow-up survey response in cigarette smokers: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jul 4;19(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0786-9.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Man Ping Wang, PhD principal investigator
Study Principal Investigator
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of To Test the Effectiveness of Different Incentive Models for Increasing the Follow-up Response Rate in the Current Smoker Subject, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Hong Kong. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Proportion of respondents who will complete the 3-month follow-up (time frame: Finish all telephone survey by Jan 2018). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03297866, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 May 2018.