1 / 15

May 9, 2006 National STD Prevention Conference Kathryn E. Macomber, 1 MPH Oana Vasiliu, 2 MS

Enhancing Gonorrhea Surveillance to Guide Program and Policy The Pros and Cons of Using Incentives in Behavioral Surveillance. May 9, 2006 National STD Prevention Conference Kathryn E. Macomber, 1 MPH Oana Vasiliu, 2 MS Jennifer Bissette 2 1 Michigan Department of Community Health

charis
Download Presentation

May 9, 2006 National STD Prevention Conference Kathryn E. Macomber, 1 MPH Oana Vasiliu, 2 MS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Enhancing Gonorrhea Surveillance to Guide Program and PolicyThe Pros and Cons of Using Incentives in Behavioral Surveillance May 9, 2006National STD Prevention Conference Kathryn E. Macomber,1 MPHOana Vasiliu,2 MS Jennifer Bissette2 1 Michigan Department of Community Health 2 Virginia Department of Health

  2. Objectives • To compare data from an state offering incentives (VA) to a state that did not use incentives (MI) • Methods • Logistics • IRB • Survey Response • Missing Values • Unknown Values

  3. Methods-MI • 6 local health department (LHD) STD clinics • Offered to all clinic attendees but only data for GC+ • Self-administered • Initially 2 health departments in July of 2003 • Added 3 more health departments in 2004

  4. Methods-VA • Conducted at Richmond City STD Clinic • Attempted to solicit all attendees • 80% of eligible attendees • Trained interviewer with established interview guide • Excluded from survey participation: • those under 14 • correctional inmates • treatment only patients

  5. Logistics-MI • Questions integrated into existing intake form • Revised instrument and copies provided by state • Mailing labels and envelopes provided by state • Surveys from GC+ patients mailed by LHD once a month • Original copy remained in patients’ chart

  6. Logistics-VA • Surveys were entered regardless of test result • Surveys were kept at the state level • Summary of findings presented to LHD • Lab results obtained from LHD staff 2-4 weeks after survey completion • Surveys were linked to lab results by unique identifier

  7. Sample Form-MI

  8. Sample Form-VA

  9. Incentives • MI-no incentives • VA: patients provided with $10 MacDonalds gift certificate (01/15/03-08/01/05) • Survey continued without incentives through 9/23/05 • Total cost of incentives $72,225

  10. IRB • MI: IRB determined to be surveillance • Exempt from review • VA: Reviewed by VDH IRB • Consent forms required • All survey modifications underwent review

  11. Overall Response

  12. Completeness by Variables

  13. Percent Unknown by Variable

  14. Limitations • Different Methodology • Self-administered (MI) vs. Trained Interviewer (VA) • VA’s non-incentive time period occurred after having provided incentives • Response Rates not completely comparable • MI: GC+ surveys/GC+ tests • VA: All Participants/All Solicited STD Clients

  15. Conclusions • Use of incentives associated with an increased cost • Providing incentives positively impacted response rates • Urban et al (2005) • Completion rates (overall and by variable) were similar to MI’s without an incentive • Differences in response rates and completion rates may be more due to methods of survey administration (interviewer) • Greenberg et al (1999)

More Related