Does Size Matter? Salience of Follow-Up Payments in Drug Abuse Research

By Croft, Jason R.; Festinger, David S. et al. | IRB: Ethics & Human Research, July-August 2007 | Go to article overview

Does Size Matter? Salience of Follow-Up Payments in Drug Abuse Research


Croft, Jason R., Festinger, David S., Dugosh, Karen L., Marlowe, Douglas B., Rosenwasser, Beth J., IRB: Ethics & Human Research


Clinical outcomes studies frequently provide payment incentives to research participants for completing follow-up assessments. The payments are intended to compensate participants for their time and effort and to encourage those who might otherwise be difficult to relocate to stay in contact with the research team.

Maintaining adequate follow-up rates is of particular concern in drug abuse research studies, which are often hindered by substantial attrition of research subjects prior to follow-up assessments. Dozens of drug abuse treatment outcome studies report average attrition rates ranging from 20% at six months postadmission to 35% at 12 months postadmission to 65% at 36 months postadmission. (1) A meta-analysis of 85 drug abuse prevention studies similarly reported average attrition rates ranging from 27% at 12 months postadmission to 33% at 36 months postadmission. (2) Importantly, these reviews and meta-analyses only included published studies, and it is reasonable to assume that many studies with lower follow-up rates were never published for the very reason that their follow-up rates were deemed to be unacceptable. Indeed, follow-up rates in large-scale community evaluations of drug abuse treatment programs often fall well below an acceptable threshold of 70% and have been as low as 47%. (3)

Attrition from research cannot be assumed to be random or ignorable. The likelihood that a research subject will complete a follow-up assessment is influenced by such confounding factors as the participant's demographic and drug-use characteristics, as well as the nature of the research interventions. (5) This can contribute to systematic differences in attrition rates between research conditions, which would constitute a serious threat to the internal validity of a study. For example, a larger proportion of participants in an experimental treatment arm of a study might be lost to follow-up as compared to control participants attending treatment as usual. This could have the effect of undermining random assignment by making the experimental and control conditions systematically different from each other on outcome-biasing factors. Because such confounding effects may go unmeasured or undetected, they can never be confidently ruled out, thus leaving the findings in irresolvable doubt. Moreover, it cannot be confidently determined whether the follow-up sample sufficiently represented the original baseline cohort, which presents a serious threat to the external validity or generalizability of the study. (6)

Differential attrition also raises ethical concerns about the potential for systematic exclusion of certain subgroups of clients from treatment-outcome studies, such as clients who are geographically transient, emotionally withdrawn, or socially disenfranchised. If such individuals self-select out of research studies, then new treatment-related findings and therapeutic advances might be less applicable to those very clients who may need the services the most. This process could potentially violate the ethical principle of justice, which necessitates publicly funded research programs to benefit all members of society in a fairly equivalent manner. (7)

One strategy that has proven successful in improving follow-up rates is the use of payment incentives. The literature on "contingency management" or "operant conditioning" is replete with evidence that payments can improve a wide range of behaviors among substance abusers, including increasing treatment attendance and drug abstinence, (8) as well as enhancing recontact rates in research. (9)

In a prior study, consenting research subjects recruited from drug-free, outpatient substance abuse treatment programs were randomly assigned to receive various magnitudes of payment incentives ($10, $40, or $70) in either cash or gift certificates for attending a six-month follow-up research assessment. Results revealed that subjects who received higher-magnitude cash incentives had significantly better follow-up rates and reported greater satisfaction with the research study. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Does Size Matter? Salience of Follow-Up Payments in Drug Abuse Research
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.