Dataset Information

The effects of financial incentives on diabetes prevention program attendance and weight loss among low-income patients: the We Can Prevent Diabetes cluster-randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Penetration and participation of real life implementation of lifestyle change programs to prevent type 2 diabetes has been challenging. This is particularly so among low income individuals in the United States. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of financial incentives on attendance and weight loss among Medicaid beneficiaries participating in the 12-month Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). METHODS:This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial with two financial incentive study arms and an attention control study arm. Medicaid beneficiaries with prediabetes from 13 primary care clinics were randomly assigned to individually earned incentives (IND; 33 groups; n =?309), a hybrid of individual- and group-earned incentives (GRP; 30 groups; n =?259), and an attention control (AC; 30 groups; n =?279). Up to $520 in incentives could be earned for attaining attendance and weight loss goals over 12?months. Outcomes are percent weight loss from baseline, achieving 5% weight loss from baseline, and attending 75% of core and 75% of maintenance DPP sessions. Linear mixed models were used to examine weight change and attendance rates over the 16?weeks and 12?months. RESULTS:The percent weight change at 16?weeks for the IND, GRP, and AC participants were similar, at -?2.6, -?3.1%, and?-?3.4%, respectively. However, participants achieving 5% weight loss in the IND, GRP, and AC groups was 21.5, 24.0% (GRP vs AC, P

SUBMITTER: Desai JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7580006 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effects of financial incentives on diabetes prevention program attendance and weight loss among low-income patients: the We Can Prevent Diabetes cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Desai Jay R JR Vazquez-Benitez Gabriela G Taylor Gretchen G Johnson Sara S Anderson Julie J Garrett Joyce E JE Gilmer Todd T Vue-Her Houa H Rinn Sarah S Engel Katelyn K Schiff Jeff J O'Connor Patrick J PJ

BMC public health 20201021 1

<h4>Background</h4>Penetration and participation of real life implementation of lifestyle change programs to prevent type 2 diabetes has been challenging. This is particularly so among low income individuals in the United States. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of financial incentives on attendance and weight loss among Medicaid beneficiaries participating in the 12-month Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).<h4>Methods</h4>This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial wit ...[more]

PMID: 33087083

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionObesity is a major public health challenge and exacerbates economic disparities through employment discrimination and increased personal health expenditures. Financial incentives for weight management may intensify individuals' utilisation of evidence-based behavioural strategies while addressing obesity-related economic disparities in low-income populations. Trials have focused on testing incentives contingent on achieving weight loss outcomes. However, based on social cognitive and self-determination theories, providing incentives for achieving intermediate behavioural goals may be more sustainable than incentivising outcomes if they enhance an individual's skills and self-efficacy for maintaining long-term weight loss. The objective of this paper is to describe the rationale and design of the Financial Incentives foR Weight Reduction study, a randomised controlled trial to test the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two financial incentive strategies for weight loss (goal directed vs outcome based) among low-income adults with obesity, as well as compared with the provision of health behaviour change resources alone.Methods and analysisWe are recruiting 795 adults, aged 18-70 years with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, from three primary care clinics serving residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods in New York City and Los Angeles. All participants receive a 1-year commercial weight loss programme membership, self-monitoring tools (bathroom scale, food journal and Fitbit Alta HR), health education and monthly check-in visits. In addition to these resources, those in the two intervention groups can earn up to $750 over 6 months for: (1) participating in an intensive weight management programme, self-monitoring weight and diet and meeting physical activity guidelines (goal-directed arm); or (2) a ≥1.5% to ≥5% reduction in baseline weight (outcome-based arm). To maximise incentive efficacy, we incorporate concepts from behavioural economics, including immediacy of payments and framing feedback to elicit regret aversion. We will use generalised mixed effect models for repeated measures to examine intervention effects on weight at 6, 9 and 12 months.Ethics and disseminationHuman research protection committees at New York University School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) David Geffen School of Medicine and Olive-View-UCLA Medical Center granted ethics approval. We will disseminate the results of this research via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with stakeholders.Trial registration numberNCT03157713.

Project description:IntroductionThe Diabetes Prevention Program, an intensive lifestyle change program, effectively reduces the risk of progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes but is underutilized. An implementation study using formative research was undertaken to increase Diabetes Prevention Program referrals at a primary care clinic.Study designA pragmatic, cluster randomized, mixed-methods study.Setting/particpantsClusters were teams of primary care clinicians from 2 primary care clinics. The 3 intervention clusters had 8-11 clinicians, and the 3 control clusters had 7-20 clinicians.InterventionImplementation activities occurred from December 2017 to February 2019. The activities included targeted clinician education, a prediabetes clinician champion, and a custom electronic health record report identifying patients with prediabetes.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was referral of patients with prediabetes to the institutional Diabetes Prevention Program. Study data, including patient demographic and clinical variables, came from electronic health record. Interviews with clinicians evaluated the implementation strategies. Generalized estimating equation analyses that accounted for multiple levels of correlation and interview content analysis occurred in 2019.ResultsStudy clinicians cared for 2,992 patients with a prediabetes diagnosis or HbA1c indicative of prediabetes (5.7%-6.4%). Clinicians in the intervention clusters referred 6.9% (87 of 1,262) of patients with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program and those in the control clusters referred 1.5% (26 of 1,730). When adjusted for patient age, sex, race, HbA1c value, HbA1c test location, and insurance type, intervention clinicians had 3.85 (95% CI=0.40, 36.78) greater odds of referring a patient with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program. The 11 interviewed intervention clinicians had mixed opinions about the utility of the interventions, reporting the prediabetes clinic champion (n=7, 64%) and educational presentations (n=6, 55%) as most helpful.ConclusionsIntervention clinicians were more likely to make Diabetes Prevention Program referrals; however, the study lacked power to achieve statistical significance. Clinician interviews suggested that intervention components that triggered Diabetes Prevention Program referrals varied among clinicians.

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:IntroductionInternet-delivered behavioral weight control is promising for expanding the reach and availability of weight management, but online programs produce lower weight losses than typically achieved in person. Financial incentives have been shown to increase weight losses. This study examined whether adding financial incentives for self-monitoring and achieving target weight losses increases weight losses attained in a fully online, group-based behavioral weight management program compared with the same program alone.Study designThis study was an RCT.Setting/participantsAdults with overweight and obesity (n=418; 91% female; 28% minority) were recruited from 2 clinical centers.InterventionThe intervention was a 24-session online group-based behavioral weight control program with weekly synchronous chat sessions (Internet-only) or the same program with weekly financial incentives for self-monitoring body weight and dietary intake daily and for achieving target weight losses at 2 and 6 months (Internet + incentives).Main outcome measuresThis study measured weight loss at 6 months and treatment engagement (attendance, self-monitoring of body weight, dietary intake, and physical activity). Data were collected between February 2016 and August 2018, and analyses were completed in 2019.ResultsParticipants randomized to the Internet + incentives group lost more weight (-6.4 [SD=5.5] kg) than those in the Internet-only group (-4.7 [SD=6.6] kg; p<0.01). Further, a higher proportion of the Internet + incentives group achieved ≥5% weight loss (55%) than those in the Internet-only group (40%; p<0.05). Treatment engagement was higher in the Internet + incentives condition, with greater self-monitoring of behaviors targeted by incentives, as well as higher rates of behaviors not targeted and higher self-reported physical activity. Study retention was higher among those in the Internet + incentives condition (91%) than those in the Internet-only condition (81%; p=0.003).ConclusionsAdding financial incentives to a program delivered fully online increases weight losses compared with the program alone and can achieve weight losses comparable to in-person programs, offering potential for substantial geographic reach.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02688621.

Dataset Information

The effects of financial incentives on diabetes prevention program attendance and weight loss among low-income patients: the We Can Prevent Diabetes cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Publications

The effects of financial incentives on diabetes prevention program attendance and weight loss among low-income patients: the We Can Prevent Diabetes cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets