Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, SubjectSatisfaction and Safety in Intimate Partner Violence Researc...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction and Safety in Intimate Partner Violence Research?_ Karin Rhodes 5_7_13

353 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
353
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction and Safety in Intimate Partner Violence Research?_ Karin Rhodes 5_7_13

  1. 1. Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, SubjectSatisfaction and Safety in Intimate Partner Violence Research?Melissa A. Rodgers, BA1, Alexandra L. Hanlon, Ph.D2, Elizabeth M. Datner, MD1, Karin V. Rhodes, MD, MS11School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 2School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania Effective evidence-based interventions areneeded for patients with intimate partnerviolence (IPV) and other psychosocial risks. Innovative technologies may addressmethodological weaknesses of previousresearch with this at-risk population including: high rates of attrition safety concerns contacting participants inadequate outcome measures. Generic bank cards allow for wireless, flexible,and immediate payment for data collection thatcan be conducted remotely.BackgroundDemographics for Card vs. Cash paid individualsTo assess the impact of a wireless incentivepayment on subject retention, satisfaction, andsafety compared to those paid with cash.ObjectivesCard(n=103)Cash(n=112)Difference inProportions95% CI PAge ( Med / IQR) 32 (25-41) 31 (23-35) -1.64* -4.46 – 1.19 0.7115African American (N / %) 76 74.5% 75 68.2% 6% -0.18 – 0.06 0.3630Marital Status: Single 75 72.8% 84 75.7% 3% -0.09 – 0.15 0.6424Education: Less than High School Grad 20 19.4% 23 20.7% 1% -0.09 – 1.20 0.8654Unemployed (outside the home) 55 53.4% 59 52.7% 1% -0.14 – 0.13 0.9159Income: Less than $10,000 year 26 28.6% 30 29.4% 1% -0.12 – 0.14 0.8978Children: No Children (<18) in Home 44 46.8% 44 43.6% 1% -0.13 – 0.14 0.9510IPV Severity: CTS2S Score ( Med / IQR) 7.5 (3-9) 12.1 (4.5-16) 4.73* 2.24 – 7.22 0.0054Alcohol Severity: AUDIT Score 7.9 (4- 9) 9.3 (5 - 11) 1.40* -0.18 – 2.99 0.9669*Difference in Means for Continuous Variables Prospective cohort study using longitudinaldata collected during a large randomizedcontrol trial of an IPV intervention. Female patients age 18-64 are recruited froman urban ED setting for a 3-12 month studyfunded by NIAAA. All enrollees meet study eligibility criteria ofrisky drinking and experience with IPV in thepast 3 months, and are compensated $10 forcompleting each of the 12 weekly automatedphone surveys. A natural experiment occurred; the first 112participants enrolled were paid cash, inperson, and the next 103 participantsreceived wireless payments via a bank card. Adjusting for significant demographics, abackward elimination GEE Model examinesthe association between payment type, andthe number of calls completed over the 12weeks. Participants were asked about their safetyand satisfaction with the incentive structureduring 3-month interviews.Methods The mean number of calls for the wirelessincentive group is 8.3 (SD=3.54), which issignificantly greater than the cash incentivegroup (M=6.0; SD=3.79). Overall, 45% of those paid with cashcompleted 10-12 calls vs. 22% who werepaid cash. On average, card participantscompleted 70% of their calls while thosepaid cash completed 50%. Payment type groups are demographicallysimilar with regard to age, marital status,education, employment, and alcohol severity,but vary in terms of IPV severity. Card participants were more likely tocomplete a phone survey each week(OR=1.52; CI 1.00-2.29). While completion decreased over time(OR=1.06; CI=1.03-1.10), the number of callscompleted declined more rapidly for thosewith the cash incentive (p=0.0016). Over 90% of participants who received a giftcard expressed satisfaction with the paymentmethod and phone survey; 60% indicatedthat they preferred the gift card incentive. At 3-months, there was no difference in self-reported safety between the two groups.Results A wireless incentive structure may help toimprove retention in clinical research,particularly with repetitive outcome measuresthat can be collected remotely. Patient satisfaction with the gift card reinforcestheir use with this vulnerable study population. Future analyses should include a more directmeasurement of whether the cards alleviatepotential safety risks for involved participants.Conclusions Participants included in this analysis arefemale, were recruited from two urban EDdepartments, and met study eligibility criteria ofrisking drinking (AUDIT>3) and experience ofIPV in the past 3 months(CTS2S ≥ 1). Data was not collected during a concurrent timeperiod for the two payment type groups.Limitations% of Participants by Number of Completed CallsCash(n=112)Card(n=103)22%27%18%33%45%29%11% 16%10-127-94-61-3Number of Calls

×