Dataset Information

Effect of Patient Financial Incentives on Statin Adherence and Lipid Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Financial incentives can improve medication adherence and cardiovascular disease risk, but the optimal design to promote sustained adherence after incentives are discontinued is unknown.

Objective

To determine whether 6-month interventions involving different financial incentives to encourage statin adherence reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline to 12 months.

Design, setting, and participants

This 4-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 to July 2018 among several large US insurer or employer populations and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The study population included adults with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C control, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Data analysis was performed from July 2017 to June 2019.

Interventions

The interventions lasted 6 months during which all participants received daily medication reminders and an electronic pill bottle. Statin adherence was measured by opening the bottle. For participants randomized to the 3 intervention groups, adherence was rewarded with financial incentives. The sweepstakes group involved incentives for daily adherence. In the deadline sweepstakes group, incentives were reduced if participants were adherent only after a reminder. The sweepstakes plus deposit contract group split incentives between daily adherence and a monthly deposit reduced for each day of nonadherence.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months.

Results

Among 805 participants randomized (199 in the simple daily sweepstakes group, 204 in the deadline sweepstakes group, 201 in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group, and 201 in the control group), the mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.3) years; 519 participants (64.5%) were women, 514 (63.9%) had diabetes, and 273 (33.9%) had cardiovascular disease. The mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 143.2 (42.5) mg/dL. Measured adherence at 6 months (defined as the proportion of 180 days with electronic pill bottle opening) in the control group (0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) was lower than that in the simple sweepstakes group (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), the deadline sweepstakes group (0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) (P < .001 for each incentive group vs control). LDL-C levels were measured for 636 participants at 12 months. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control).

Conclusions and relevance

Compared with the control group, different financial incentives improved measured statin adherence but not LDL-C levels. This result points to the importance of directly measuring health outcomes, rather than simply adherence, in trials aimed at improving health behaviors.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

SUBMITTER: Barankay I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7547367 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFinancial incentives to physicians or patients are increasingly used, but their effectiveness is not well established.ObjectiveTo determine whether physician financial incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician and patient incentives are more effective than control in reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among patients with high cardiovascular risk.Design, setting, and participantsFour-group, multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial with a 12-month intervention conducted from 2011 to 2014 in 3 primary care practices in the northeastern United States. Three hundred forty eligible primary care physicians (PCPs) were enrolled from a pool of 421. Of 25,627 potentially eligible patients of those PCPs, 1503 enrolled. Patients aged 18 to 80 years were eligible if they had a 10-year Framingham Risk Score (FRS) of 20% or greater, had coronary artery disease equivalents with LDL-C levels of 120 mg/dL or greater, or had an FRS of 10% to 20% with LDL-C levels of 140 mg/dL or greater. Investigators were blinded to study group, but participants were not.InterventionsPrimary care physicians were randomly assigned to control, physician incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician-patient incentives. Physicians in the physician incentives group were eligible to receive up to $1024 per enrolled patient meeting LDL-C goals. Patients in the patient incentives group were eligible for the same amount, distributed through daily lotteries tied to medication adherence. Physicians and patients in the shared incentives group shared these incentives. Physicians and patients in the control group received no incentives tied to outcomes, but all patient participants received up to $355 each for trial participation.Main outcomes and measuresChange in LDL-C level at 12 months.ResultsPatients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved a mean reduction in LDL-C of 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 30.1-37.1; baseline, 160.1 mg/dL; 12 months, 126.4 mg/dL); those in physician incentives achieved a mean reduction of 27.9 mg/dL (95% CI, 24.9-31.0; baseline, 159.9 mg/dL; 12 months, 132.0 mg/dL); those in patient incentives achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.6-28.5; baseline, 160.6 mg/dL; 12 months, 135.5 mg/dL); and those in the control group achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.7-28.5; baseline, 161.5 mg/dL; 12 months, 136.4 mg/dL; P < .001 for comparison of all 4 groups). Only patients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved reductions in LDL-C levels statistically different from those in the control group (8.5 mg/dL; 95% CI, 3.8-13.3; P = .002).Conclusions and relevanceIn primary care practices, shared financial incentives for physicians and patients, but not incentives to physicians or patients alone, resulted in a statistically significant difference in reduction of LDL-C levels at 12 months. This reduction was modest, however, and further information is needed to understand whether this approach represents good value.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01346189.

Project description:BackgroundSimple nudges such as reminders and feedback reports to either a patient or a partner may facilitate improved medication adherence.ObjectiveTo test the impact of a pill bottle used to monitor adherence, deliver a daily alarm, and generate weekly medication adherence feedback reports on statin adherence.DesignThree-month, three-arm randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480530).ParticipantsOne hundred and twenty-six veterans with known coronary artery disease and poor adherence (medication possession ratio <80 %).InterventionPatients were randomized to one of three groups: (1) a control group (n = 36) that received a pill-monitoring device with no alarms or feedback; (2) an individual feedback group (n = 36) that received a daily alarm and a weekly medication adherence feedback report; and (3) a partner feedback group (n = 54) that received an alarm and a weekly feedback report that was shared with a friend, family member, or a peer. The intervention continued for 3 months, and participants were followed for an additional 3 months after the intervention period.Main measuresAdherence as measured by pill bottle. Secondary outcomes included change in LDL (mg/dl), patient activation, and social support.Key resultsDuring the 3-month intervention period, medication adherence was higher in both feedback arms than in the control arm (individual feedback group 89 %, partner feedback group 86 %, control group 67 %; p < 0.001 and = 0.001). At 6 months, there was no difference in medication adherence between either of the feedback groups and the control (individual feedback 60 %, partner feedback 52 %, control group 54 %; p = 0.75 and 0.97).ConclusionsDaily alarms combined with individual or partner feedback reports improved statin medication adherence. While neither an individual feedback nor partner feedback strategy created a sustainable medication adherence habit, the intervention itself is relatively easy to implement and low cost.

Project description:Importance:Although breastfeeding has a positive effect on an infant's health and development, the prevalence is low in many communities. The effect of financial incentives to improve breastfeeding prevalence is unknown. Objective:To assess the effect of an area-level financial incentive for breastfeeding on breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Nourishing Start for Health (NOSH) trial, a cluster randomized trial with 6 to 8 weeks follow-up, was conducted between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, in 92 electoral ward areas in England with baseline breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum less than 40%. A total of 10?010 mother-infant dyads resident in the 92 study electoral ward areas where the infant's estimated or actual birth date fell between February 18, 2015, and February 17, 2016, were included. Areas were randomized to the incentive plus usual care (n?=?46) (5398 mother-infant dyads) or to usual care alone (n?=?46) (4612 mother-infant dyads). Interventions:Usual care was delivered by clinicians (mainly midwives, health visitors) in a variety of maternity, neonatal, and infant feeding services, all of which were implementing the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative standards. Shopping vouchers worth £40 (US$50) were offered to mothers 5 times based on infant age (2 days, 10 days, 6-8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months), conditional on the infant receiving any breast milk. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was electoral ward area-level 6- to 8-week breastfeeding period prevalence, as assessed by clinicians at the routine 6- to 8-week postnatal check visit. Secondary outcomes were area-level period prevalence for breastfeeding initiation and for exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks. Results:In the intervention (5398 mother-infant dyads) and control (4612 mother-infant dyads) group, the median (interquartile range) percentage of women aged 16 to 44 years was 36.2% (3.0%) and 37.4% (3.6%) years, respectively. After adjusting for baseline breastfeeding prevalence and local government area and weighting to reflect unequal cluster-level breastfeeding prevalence variances, a difference in mean 6- to 8-week breastfeeding prevalence of 5.7 percentage points (37.9% vs 31.7%; 95% CI for adjusted difference, 2.7% to 8.6%; P?<?.001) in favor of the intervention vs usual care was observed. No significant differences were observed for the mean prevalence of breastfeeding initiation (61.9% vs 57.5%; adjusted mean difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95%, CI, -0.4 to 6.2; P?=?.08) or the mean prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks (27.0% vs 24.1%; adjusted mean difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 4.8; P?=?.07). Conclusions and Relevance:Financial incentives may improve breastfeeding rates in areas with low baseline prevalence. Offering a financial incentive to women in areas of England with breastfeeding rates below 40% compared with usual care resulted in a modest but statistically significant increase in breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks. This was measured using routinely collected data. Trial Registration:International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry: ISRCTN44898617.

Project description:ImportanceGlycemic control often deteriorates during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood for patients with type 1 diabetes. The inability to manage type 1 diabetes effectively during these years is associated with poor glycemic control and complications from diabetes in adult life.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of daily financial incentives on glucose monitoring adherence and glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsThe Behavioral Economic Incentives to Improve Glycemic Control Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (BE IN CONTROL) study was an investigator-blinded, 6-month, 2-arm randomized clinical trial conducted between January 22 and November 2, 2016, with 3-month intervention and follow-up periods. Ninety participants (aged 14-20) with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] >8.0%) were recruited from the Diabetes Center for Children at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.InterventionsAll participants were given daily blood glucose monitoring goals of 4 or more checks per day with 1 or more level within the goal range (70-180 mg/dL) collected with a wireless glucometer. The 3-month intervention consisted of a $60 monthly incentive in a virtual account, from which $2 was subtracted for every day of nonadherence to the monitoring goals. During a 3-month follow-up period, the intervention was discontinued.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in HbA1c levels at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included adherence to glucose monitoring and change in HbA1c levels at 6 months. All analyses were by intention to treat.ResultsOf the 181 participants screened, 90 (52 [57.8%] girls) were randomized to the intervention (n = 45) or control (n = 45) arms. The mean (SD) age was 16.3 (1.9) years. The intervention group had significantly greater adherence to glucose monitoring goals in the incentive period (50.0% vs 18.9%; adjusted difference, 27.2%; 95% CI, 9.5% to 45.0%; P = .003) but not in the follow-up period (15.3% vs 8.7%; adjusted difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -2.0% to 9.9%; P = .20). The change in HbA1c levels from baseline did not differ significantly between groups at 3 months (adjusted difference, -0.08%; 95% CI, -0.69% to 0.54%; P = .80) or 6 months (adjusted difference, 0.03%; 95% CI, -0.55% to 0.60%; P = .93).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes, daily financial incentives improved glucose monitoring adherence during the incentive period but did not significantly improve glycemic control.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02568501.

Project description:ImportanceMailing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits to patients' homes has been shown to boost colorectal cancer screening rates, but response rates remain limited, and organized programs typically require repeated outreach attempts. Behavioral economics has shown that offering salient financial incentives to patients may increase participation in preventive health.ObjectiveTo compare the impact of different financial incentives for mailed FIT outreach.Design, setting, and participantsThis 4-parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included patients aged 50 to 75 years who had an established primary care clinician, at least 2 visits in the prior 2 years, and were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and not up-to-date. This study was conducted at urban primary care practices at an academic health system from December 2015 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March 2018 to September 2018.InterventionsEligible patients received a letter from their primary care clinician that included a mailed FIT kit and instructions for use. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive (1) no financial incentive; (2) an unconditional $10 incentive included with the mailing; (3) a $10 incentive conditional on FIT completion; or (4) a conditional lottery with a 1-in-10 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion.Main outcomes and measuresFecal immunochemical test completion within 2 and 6 months of initial outreach.ResultsA total of 897 participants were randomized, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 52-62 years); 56% were women, and 69% were black. The overall completion rate across all arms was 23.5% at 2 months. The completion rate at 2 months was 26.0% (95% CI, 20.4%-32.3%) in the no incentive arm, 27.2% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.6%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 23.2% (95% CI, 17.9%-29.3%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 17.7% (95% CI, 13.0%-23.3%) in the lottery incentive arm. None of the arms with an incentive were statistically superior to the arm without incentive. The overall FIT completion rate across all arms was 28.9% at 6 months, and there was also no difference by arm. The completion rate at 6 months was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.6%-39.3%) in the no incentive arm, 31.7% (95% CI, 25.7%-38.2%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1%-33.1%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 24.3% (95% CI, 18.9%-30.5%) in the lottery incentive arm.Conclusions and relevanceMailed FIT resulted in high colorectal cancer screening response rates in this population, but different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not incrementally increase FIT completion rates. The incentive value may have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02594150.

Project description:ImportanceFinancial incentives may improve health by rewarding patients for focusing on present actions-such as medication regimen adherence-that provide longer-term health benefits.ObjectiveTo identify barriers to improving statin therapy adherence and control of cholesterol levels with financial incentives and insights for the design of future interventions.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study involved retrospective interviews with participants in a preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of financial incentives for statin therapy adherence. A total of 636 trial participants from several US insurer or employer populations and an academic health system were rank ordered by change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) levels. Participants with the most LDLC level improvement (high-improvement group) and those with LDLC levels that did not improve (nonimprovement group) were purposively targeted, stratified across all trial groups, for semistructured telephone interviews that were performed from April 1 to June 30, 2018. Interviews were coded using a team-based, iterative approach. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to October 31, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mean change in LDLC level from baseline to 12 months; the secondary outcome, statin therapy adherence during the first 6 months.ResultsA total of 54 patients were interviewed, divided equally between high-improvement and nonimprovement groups, with a mean (SD) age of 43.5 (10.3) years; 36 (66.7%) were women, 28 (51.9%) had diabetes, and 18 (33.3%) had cardiovascular disease. Compared with the high-improvement group, the nonimprovement group had fewer interviewees with an annual income of greater than $50 000 (11 [40.7%] vs 22 [81.5%]), worse self-reported health (fair to poor, 13 [48.1%] vs 3 [11.1%]), more Black interviewees (16 [59.3%] vs 4 [14.8%]), and lower baseline LDLC levels (>160 mg/dL, 2 [7.4%] vs 25 [92.6%]). Participants in the nonimprovement group had a greater burden of chronic illness (≥2 chronic conditions, 13 [48.1%] vs 6 [22.2%]) and were less frequently employed (full-time, 6 [22.2%] vs 12 [44.4%]). In interviews, the nonimprovement group was less focused on risks of high LDLC levels, described less engagement in LDLC level management, articulated fewer specific nutritional choices for optimizing health, and recounted greater difficulty obtaining healthy food. Participants in both groups had difficulty describing the structure of the financial incentives but did recall features of the electronic pill containers used to track adherence and how those containers affected medication routines.Conclusions and relevanceParticipants in a statin adherence trial whose LDLC levels did not improve found it more difficult to create medication routines and respond to financial incentives in the context of complex living conditions and a high burden of chronic illness. These findings suggest that future studies should be more attentive to socioeconomic circumstances of trial participants.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

Project description:ImportanceEvidence-based guidelines recommend thiazide diuretics as a first-line therapy for uncomplicated hypertension; however, thiazides are underused, and hypertension remains inadequately managed.ObjectiveTo test the efficacy of a patient activation intervention with financial incentives to promote thiazide prescribing.Design, setting, and participantsThe Veterans Affairs Project to Implement Diuretics, a randomized clinical trial, was conducted at 13 Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from August 1, 2006, to July 31, 2008, with 12 months of follow-up. A total of 61 019 patients were screened to identify 2853 eligible patients who were not taking a thiazide and not at their blood pressure (BP) goal; 598 consented to participate. Statistical analysis was conducted from December 1, 2017, to September 12, 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomized to a control group (n = 196) or 1 of 3 intervention groups designed to activate patients to talk with their primary care clinicians about thiazides and hypertension: group A (n = 143) received an activation letter, group B (n = 128) received a letter plus a financial incentive, and group C (n = 131) received a letter, financial incentive, and a telephone call encouraging patients to speak with their primary care clinicians.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were thiazide prescribing and BP control. A secondary process measure was discussion between patient and primary care clinician about thiazides.ResultsAmong 598 participants (588 men and 10 women), the mean (SD) age for the combined intervention groups (n = 402) was 62.9 (8.8) years, and the mean baseline BP was 148.1/83.8 mm Hg; the mean (SD) age for the control group (n = 196) was 64.1 (9.2) years, and the mean baseline BP was 151.0/83.4 mm Hg. At index visits, the unadjusted rate of thiazide prescribing was 9.7% for the control group (19 of 196) and 24.5% (35 of 143) for group A, 25.8% (33 of 128) for group B, and 32.8% (43 of 131) for group C (P < .001). Adjusted analyses demonstrated an intervention effect on thiazide prescribing at the index visit and 6-month visit, which diminished at the 12-month visit. For BP control, there was a significant intervention effect at the 12-month follow-up for group C (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.83; P = .04). Intervention groups exhibited improved thiazide discussion rates in a dose-response fashion: group A, 44.1% (63 of 143); group B, 56.3% (72 of 128); and group C, 68.7% (90 of 131) (P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceThis patient activation intervention about thiazides for hypertension resulted in two-thirds of patients having discussions and nearly one-third initiating a prescription of thiazide. Adding a financial incentive and telephone call to the letter resulted in incremental improvements in both outcomes. By 12 months, improved BP control was also evident. This low-cost, low-intensity intervention resulted in high rates of discussions between patients and clinicians and subsequent thiazide treatment and may be used to promote evidence-based guidelines and overcome clinical inertia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00265538.