This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

54/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Incentives are a cornerstone of attracting and retaining participants in clinical research studies.1 They serve as compensation for the time and effort individuals dedicate to the research process.1 However, previous randomized clinical trials found incentivizing was not associated with increased rates of clinical trial recruitment.2, 3 Furthermore, the rate participants redeem these incentives can vary considerably.1, 4 Although numerous methods have been used to increase trial recruitment, no studies have been conducted to explore factors associated with incentive redemption, regardless of clinical area. Second, knowledge of these factors can help identify potential barriers associated with the redemption process itself.5 For example, a cumbersome or inconvenient redemption method might discourage participants from claiming their reward, which may discourage future participation. Researchers can enhance their motivational impact and improve overall study enrollment by tailoring incentives to specific participant demographics or preferences. We explored factors associated with incentive redemption status. All tests were two-sided, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Age was the only factor found to be associated with incentive redemption. Participants aged 60–69 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9), 70–79 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5), and ≥80 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) were significantly less likely to redeem incentives compared to participants aged 40–49. To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the factors associated with incentive redemption. Unfortunately, remarkably little data exist on what influences older adults to redeem incentives.9 Previous literature suggested that the following have been shown to affect their decision making about incentives: emotional regulations, changes in executive function, and age-related cognitive declines.9 Future studies should investigate the underlying factors contributing to the lower redemption rates among older adults. Our findings underscore the critical importance of understanding and addressing barriers to incentive redemption.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Wongtanasarasin, W., Nishijima, D. K., Wood, N. E., DeAngelis, J., Storrow, A. B., Schimmel, J., et al. (2024). Factors associated with incentive redemption among participants in a multicenter prospective syncope clinical study. Academic Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14979

Vancouver

Wongtanasarasin W, Nishijima DK, Wood NE, DeAngelis J, Storrow AB, Schimmel J, et al. Factors associated with incentive redemption among participants in a multicenter prospective syncope clinical study. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2024. doi:10.1111/acem.14979. PMID: 38940329.

BibTeX

@article{wongtanasarasin2024-38940329,
  author  = {Wongtanasarasin, Wachira and Nishijima, Daniel K. and Wood, Nancy E. and DeAngelis, John and Storrow, Alan B. and Schimmel, Jonathan and Beltre, Nataly and Sacco, Dana L. and others},
  title   = {{Factors associated with incentive redemption among participants in a multicenter prospective syncope clinical study}},
  journal = {Academic Emergency Medicine},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1111/acem.14979},
  pmid    = {38940329},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14979}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Incentives are a cornerstone of attracting and retaining participants in clinical research studies.1 They serve as compensation for the time and effort individuals dedicate to the research process.1 However, previous randomized clinical trials found incentivizing was not associated with increased rates of clinical trial recruitment.2, 3 Furthermore, the rate participants redeem these incentives can vary considerably.1, 4 Although numerous methods have been used to increase trial recruitment, no studies have been conducted to explore factors associated with incentive redemption, regardless of clinical area.
Second, knowledge of these factors can help identify potential barriers associated with the redemption process itself.5 For example, a cumbersome or inconvenient redemption method might discourage participants from claiming their reward, which may discourage future participation.
Researchers can enhance their motivational impact and improve overall study enrollment by tailoring incentives to specific participant demographics or preferences.
We explored factors associated with incentive redemption status.
All tests were two-sided, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Why it matters

This study looked at what factors were linked to whether research participants redeemed their study incentives, and found only age mattered. It has no findings about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants586
Effect sizeaOR 0.3
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 54/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Academic Emergency Medicine)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Academic Emergency Medicine: journal h-index 177 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	586 participants
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.2 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024
Impact for its field and year	1 / 6	Cited 0.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Marc A. Probst: h-index 24 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai: institution h-index 1,331 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 7 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38940329)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	54 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Related studies in Risk factors

Also in Risk factors

356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →