Dataset Information

The effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The effect of timing of incentive payments on the response rate of telephone surveys is unknown. This study examined whether up-front or delayed incentive payments were associated with higher response rates for participation in a telephone interview administered longitudinal cohort study amongst primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms, and to compare the costs between the two timing methods. METHODS:This study was conducted as part of a naturalistic observation study on the health-related quality of life and health outcomes of Chinese primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. The incentive payment was in the form of a supermarket gift voucher to the value of HD$50 (US$6.50) and could be used in lieu of cash at a major supermarket chain.720 subjects with lower urinary tract symptoms were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was offered an incentive of supermarket cash voucher at time of recruitment ('up-front' payment). The other group was told that the voucher would be sent to them after the complete of their 1-year follow-up telephone interview ('delayed' payment). Primary outcomes were the baseline and 1-year follow-up telephone survey response rates. RESULTS:There was no statistical difference in response rates at baseline (p-value?=?0.938) or at the 1-year follow-up (p-value?=?0.751) between groups. Cost per completed subject interviews for the up-front payment method was USD16.64, whilst cost for the delayed payment was USD 13.85. CONCLUSIONS:It appears the timing of incentive payments does not affect response rates for telephone interview surveys conducted on primary care patients in Hong Kong at baseline or at 1-year follow-up. Delayed incentive payments can reduce the overall cost per successful case. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02307929 Registered 28 August 2013.

SUBMITTER: Chin WY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4596508 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial.

Chin Weng-Yee WY Choi Edmond P H EP Lam Cindy L K CL

BMC medical research methodology 20151006

<h4>Background</h4>The effect of timing of incentive payments on the response rate of telephone surveys is unknown. This study examined whether up-front or delayed incentive payments were associated with higher response rates for participation in a telephone interview administered longitudinal cohort study amongst primary care patients with lower urinary tract symptoms, and to compare the costs between the two timing methods.<h4>Methods</h4>This study was conducted as part of a naturalistic obse ...[more]

PMID: 26445404

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTeledermatology (TD) enables remote triage and management of dermatology patients. Previous analyses of TD systems have demonstrated improved access to care but an inconsistent fiscal impact.ObjectiveTo compare the organizationwide cost of managing newly referred dermatology patients within a TD triage system vs a conventional dermatology care model at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center (hereafter referred to as the ZSFG) in California.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cost minimization analysis was conducted of 2098 patients referred to the dermatology department at the ZSFG between June 1 and December 31, 2017.InterventionImplementation of the TD triage system in January 2015.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was mean cost to the health care organization to manage newly referred dermatology patients with or without TD triage. To estimate costs, decision-tree models were constructed to characterize possible care paths with TD triage and within a conventional dermatology care model. Costs associated with primary care visits, dermatology visits, and TD visits were then applied to the decision-tree models to estimate the mean cost of managing patients following each care path for 6 months. The mean cost for each visit type incorporated personnel costs, with the mean cost per TD consultation also incorporating software implementation and maintenance costs. Finally, ZSFG patient data were applied within the models to evaluate branch probabilities, enabling calculation of mean cost per patient within each model.ResultsThe analysis captured 2098 patients (1154 men [55.0%]; mean [SD] age, 53.4 [16.8] years), with 1099 (52.4%) having Medi-Cal insurance and 879 (41.9%) identifying as non-White. In the decision-tree model with TD triage, the mean (SD) cost per patient to the health care organization was $559.84 ($319.29). In the decision-tree model for conventional dermatology care, the mean (SD) cost per patient was $699.96 ($390.24). Therefore, the TD model demonstrated a statistically significant mean (SE) cost savings of $140.12 ($11.01) per patient. Given an annual dermatology referral volume of 3150 patients, the analysis estimates an annual savings of $441 378.Conclusions and relevanceImplementation of a TD triage system within the dermatology department at the ZSFG was associated with cost savings, suggesting that managed health care settings may experience significant cost savings from using TD to triage and manage patients.

Project description:Early-stage breast cancer patients comprise a large proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy in Canada. Proponents have suggested that five-fraction hypofractionated radiotherapy for these patients would result in significant cost savings. An assessment of this argument is thus warranted. The FAST-Forward and UK FAST clinical trials each demonstrated that their respective hypofractionated regimens provided equivalent outcomes compared with standard regimens. Thus, a cost-minimization analysis was performed to quantify the potential savings associated with these regimens, which were designated as FAST-Forward 1 (26 Gy/5 fractions/1 week) and FAST-Forward 2 (27 Gy/5 fractions/1 week), and UK FAST 1 (28.5 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks) and UK FAST 2 (30 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks). A standard regimen of 42.5 Gy/16 fractions/5 weeks was also included. A comprehensive model of radiotherapy costs for a Canadian cancer centre was created. Time, labour costs, and capital costs were calculated for each regimen and applied using established measures. The total costs per patient for the FAST-Forward trials were $851.77 for FAST-Forward 1 and $874.77 for FAST-Forward 2, providing a total savings of $487.99 and $464.99, respectively. Similarly, the total costs per patient for the FAST trials were $979.75 for UK FAST 1 and $1017.70 for UK FAST 2, providing savings of $360.01 and $322.06, respectively. Following the FAST-Forward 1 regimen results in the greatest reduction of infrastructure and human resources costs at 36.42% compared with the standard. Sensitivity analysis shows a maximum per-patient costs savings ranging from $474.60 to $508.53 for the FAST-Forward 1 trial, which translates to an annual savings of $174,700/year locally and $2.06 million/year province-wide, based on a moderate-to-large size department workload. Compared with a standard radiotherapy regimen, all FAST-Forward and UK FAST hypofractionated regimens provide cost savings for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. The cost savings associated with each of these equivalent regimens can be directly calculated; activities in this model can easily be adjusted to account for cost variations, allowing other centres to calculate cost impacts specific to their own centres.

Project description:BackgroundThe General Medical Services primary care contract for the United Kingdom financially rewards performance in 19 clinical areas, through the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Little is known about how best to determine the size of financial incentives in pay for performance schemes. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that performance indicators with larger population health benefits receive larger financial incentives.MethodsWe performed cross sectional analyses to quantify associations between the size of financial incentives and expected health gain in the 2004 and 2006 versions of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. We used non-parametric two-sided Spearman rank correlation tests. Health gain was measured in expected lives saved in one year and in quality adjusted life years. For each quality indicator in an average sized general practice we tested for associations first, between the marginal increase in payment and the health gain resulting from a one percent point improvement in performance and second, between total payment and the health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment.ResultsEvidence for lives saved or quality adjusted life years gained was found for 28 indicators accounting for 41% of the total incentive payments. No statistically significant associations were found between the expected health gain and incentive gained from a marginal 1% increase in performance in either the 2004 or 2006 version of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. In addition no associations were found between the size of financial payment for achievement of an indicator and the expected health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment measured in lives saved or quality adjusted life years.ConclusionsIn this subgroup of indicators the financial incentives were not aligned to maximise health gain. This disconnection between incentive and expected health gain risks supporting clinical activities that are only marginally effective, at the expense of more effective activities receiving lower incentives. When designing pay for performance programmes decisions about the size of the financial incentive attached to an indicator should be informed by information on the health gain to be expected from that indicator.

Project description:The Medicare and Premier Inc. Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID), a hospital-based pay-for-performance program, changed its incentive design from one rewarding only high performance (Phase 1) to another rewarding high performance, moderate performance, and improvement (Phase 2). We tested whether this design change reduced the gap in incentive payments among hospitals treating patients across the gradient of socioeconomic disadvantage.To estimate incentive payments in both phases, we used data from the Premier Inc. website and from Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files. We used data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Impact File to identify hospital characteristics.Hospitals were divided into quartiles based on their Disproportionate Share Index (DSH), from lowest disadvantage (Quartile 1) to highest disadvantage (Quartile 4). In both phases of the HQID, we tested for differences across the DSH quartiles for three outcomes: (1) receipt of any incentive payments; (2) total incentive payments; and (3) incentive payments per discharge. For each of the study outcomes, we performed a hospital-level difference-in-differences analysis to test whether the gap between Quartile 1 and the other quartiles decreased from Phase 1 to Phase 2.In Phase 1, there were significant gaps across the DSH quartiles for the receipt of any payment and for payment per discharge. In Phase 2, the gap was not significant for the receipt of any payment, but it remained significant for payment per discharge. For the receipt of any incentive payment, difference-in-difference estimates showed significant reductions in the gap between Quartile 1 and the other quartiles (Quartile 2, 17.5 percentage points [p < .05]; Quartile 3, 18.1 percentage points [p < .01]; Quartile 4, 28.3 percentage points [p < .01]). For payments per discharge, the gap was also significantly reduced between Quartile 1 and the other quartiles (Quartile 2, $14.92 per discharge [p < .10]; Quartile 3, $17.34 per discharge [p < .05]; Quartile 4, $21.31 per discharge [p < .01]). There were no significant reductions in the gap for total payments.The design change in the HQID reduced the disparity in the receipt of any incentive payment and for incentive payments per discharge between hospitals caring for the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged patient populations.

Project description:BackgroundTreating patients with acute poisoning by substances of abuse in a primary care emergency clinic has previously been shown to be a safe strategy. We conducted an economic evaluation of this strategy compared to hospital treatment, which is the usual strategy.MethodsAssuming equal health outcomes, we conducted a cost-minimization analysis. We constructed a representative opioid overdose patient based on a cohort of 359 patients treated for opioid overdose at the Oslo Accident and Emergency Outpatient Clinic (OAEOC) from 1.10.2011 to 30.9.2012. Using a health care system perspective, we estimated the expected resources used on the representative patient in primary care based on data from the observed OAEOC cohort and on information from key informants at the OAEOC. A likely course of treatment of the same patient in a hospital setting was established from information from key informants on provider procedures at Drammen Hospital, as were estimates of hospital use of resources. We calculated expected costs for both settings. Given that the treatments usually last for less than one day, we used undiscounted cost values.ResultsThe estimated per patient cost in primary care was 121 EUR (2018 EUR 1.00 = NOK 9.5962), comprising 97 EUR on personnel costs and 24 EUR on treatment costs. In the hospital setting, the corresponding cost was 612 EUR, comprising 186 EUR on personnel costs, 183 EUR on treatment costs, and 243 EUR associated with intensive care unit admission. The point estimate of the cost difference per patient was 491 EUR, with a low-difference scenario estimated at 264 EUR and a high-difference scenario at 771 EUR.ConclusionsCompared to hospital treatment, treating patients with opioid overdose in a primary care setting costs substantially less. Our findings are probably generalizable to poisoning with other substances of abuse. Implementing elements of the OAEOC procedure in primary care emergency clinics and in hospital emergency departments could improve the use of health care resources.

Dataset Information

The effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

The effect of timing of incentive payments on response rates for cohort study telephone interviews in primary care setting with cost-minimization analysis, a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets