Effect of Behavioral Economic Incentives for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Randomized Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background & aims
Financial incentives might increase participation in prevention such as screening colonoscopy. We studied whether incentives informed by behavioral economics increase participation in risk assessment for colorectal cancer (CRC) and completion of colonoscopy for eligible adults.Methods
Employees of a large academic health system (50-64 y old; n = 1977) were randomly assigned to groups that underwent risk assessment for CRC screening and direct access colonoscopy scheduling (control), or risk assessment, direct access colonoscopy scheduling, a $10 loss-framed incentive to complete risk assessment, and a $25 unconditional incentive for colonoscopy completion (incentive). The primary outcome was the percentage of participants who completed screening colonoscopy within 3 months of initial outreach. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of participants who scheduled colonoscopy and the percentage who completed the risk assessment.Results
At 3 months, risk assessment was completed by 19.5% of participants in the control group (95% CI, 17.0-21.9%) and 31.9% of participants in the incentive group (95% CI, 29.0-34.8%) (P < .001). At 3 months, 0.7% of controls had completed a colonoscopy (95% CI, .2%-1.2%) compared with 1.2% of subjects in the incentive group (95% CI, .5%-1.9%) (P = .25).Conclusions
In a randomized trial of participants who underwent risk assessment for CRC with vs without financial incentive, the financial incentive increased CRC risk assessment completion but did not result in a greater completion of screening colonoscopy. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT03068052.
SUBMITTER: Mehta SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7775888 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effect of Behavioral Economic Incentives for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Randomized Trial.
Mehta Shivan J SJ Reitz Catherine C Niewood Tess T Volpp Kevin G KG Asch David A DA
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 20200702 8
<h4>Background & aims</h4>Financial incentives might increase participation in prevention such as screening colonoscopy. We studied whether incentives informed by behavioral economics increase participation in risk assessment for colorectal cancer (CRC) and completion of colonoscopy for eligible adults.<h4>Methods</h4>Employees of a large academic health system (50-64 y old; n = 1977) were randomly assigned to groups that underwent risk assessment for CRC screening and direct access colonoscopy ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentives may improve health behaviors. We tested the impact of offering financial incentives for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion annually for 3 years.MethodsPatients, ages 50 to 64 years, not up-to-date with screening were randomized to receive either a mailed FIT outreach (n = 6,565), outreach plus $5 (n = 1,000), or $10 (n = 1,000) incentive for completion. Patients who completed the test were reinvited using the same incentive the following year, for 3 years. In year 4, patients who returned the kit in all preceding 3 years were reinvited without incentives. Primary outcome was FIT completion among patients offered any incentive versus outreach alone each year. Secondary outcomes were FIT completion for groups offered $5 versus outreach alone, $10 versus outreach alone, and $5 versus $10.ResultsYear 1 FIT completion was 36.9% with incentives versus 36.2% outreach alone (P = 0.59) and was not statistically different for $10 (34.6%; P = 0.31) or $5 (39.2%; P = 0.070) versus outreach alone. Year 2 completion was 61.6% with incentives versus 60.8% outreach alone (P = 0.75) and not statistically different for $10 or $5 versus outreach alone. Year 3 completion was 79.4% with incentives versus 74.8% outreach alone (P = 0.080), and was higher for $10 (82.4%) versus outreach alone (P = 0.033), but not for $5 versus outreach alone. Completion was similar across conditions in year 4 (no incentives).ConclusionsOffering small incentives did not increase FIT completion relative to standard outreach.ImpactThis was the first longitudinal study testing the impact of repeated financial incentives, and their withdrawal, on FIT completion.
| S-EPMC7008465 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6583304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups.ObjectiveTo examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates.Design, setting, and participantsThis parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled.InterventionsInterventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures.ResultsA total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceFinancial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.
| S-EPMC6789432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding mediators for behavioral change is important for the optimization of intervention strategies. This report examines mediators of change in the context of a randomized controlled intervention trial (Los Angeles, 2004-2009) that successfully increased colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Filipino Americans.MethodsThe intervention, based on the Health Behavior Framework, targeted knowledge/awareness of CRC screening, communication with health care provider, health beliefs, social support and barriers to CRC screening. Health Behavior Framework variables were assessed at baseline and 6-month follow-up (N=432). Variables targeted for change were tested as potential mediators of the primary outcome, self-reported receipt of CRC screening during the follow-up period, which was previously found to have increased significantly among intervention participants.ResultsConsistent with the Health Behavior Framework, knowledge/awareness of CRC screening and patient-provider communication mediated receipt of screening. Increase in knowledge/awareness of CRC screening accounted for 13% (95% confidence interval 2%-24%) of the total intervention effect size, while patient-provider communication accounted for 20% (5%-36%). Combined, these two variables accounted for 28% (10%-46%) of the total effect size.ConclusionExamining the roles of potential mediators in intervention trials may help identify constructs to target in order to enhance the effectiveness of interventions to increase screening.
| S-EPMC3075444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused in the US. Tailored message interventions have shown benefit for increasing screening uptake of mammography and Papanicolaou testing, but their role in CRC screening is less clear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored message telephone intervention prior to scheduling of a screening or surveillance colonoscopy and its effect on CRC screening completion rates.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2017 through August 2018 at the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS), an urban academic medical center. Participants were asymptomatic patients aged 50 to 75 years who were eligible for CRC screening or surveillance, had been referred for colonoscopy, and did not have a scheduled colonoscopy appointment. Data analysis was conducted from January to September 2019.InterventionsPatients underwent block randomization in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 study arms. Participants in the usual care group were contacted via a mailed letter and instructed to call to schedule a colonoscopy. In the generic message group, participants were contacted by telephone, completed an assessment, and received a uniform, nontailored message encouraging colonoscopy scheduling. Participants in the tailored message group were contacted by telephone, completed an assessment, and received a tailored message encouraging colonoscopy scheduling based on their identified assessment cohort.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was colonoscopy completion rate within 120 days of enrollment. The secondary outcome was colonoscopy scheduling rate appointment within 120 days of enrollment.ResultsA total of 600 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [51-63] years; 373 women [62.2%]) were enrolled, including 200 participants randomized to usual care, 200 participants randomized to the generic message, and 200 participants randomized to the tailored message. The total sample included 12 Asian participants (2.0%), 324 Black participants (54.0%), and 227 White participants (37.8%), and 9 participants (1.5%) were of Latino or Hispanic ethnicity. Colonoscopy completion was significantly higher for both the tailored message group (69 participants [34.5%]) and the generic message group (64 participants [32.0%]) compared with the usual care group (37 participants [18.5%]) (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively). Scheduling rates were also significantly higher in both groups, with 106 participants (53.0%) in the tailored message group and 105 participants (52.5%) in the generic message group scheduling appointments, compared with 54 participants (27.0%) in the usual care arm (P < .001 for both).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial among individuals whose CRC screening was not up to date, both a tailored message intervention and a generic message intervention were significantly more effective at increasing colonoscopy scheduling and completion rates compared with usual care. These findings suggest that individualized health communications can increase individual motivation to obtain CRC screening.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03310892.
| S-EPMC8972032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the use of behavioral economics approaches to promote the carrying of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) among adolescents with food allergies. We hypothesized that adolescents who receive frequent text message nudges (Intervention 1) or frequent text message nudges plus modest financial incentives (Intervention 2) would be more likely to carry their epinephrine than members of the usual care control group.MethodsWe recruited 131 adolescents ages 15 to 19 with a food allergy and a current prescription for epinephrine to participate in a cohort multiple randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to participate in Intervention 1, Intervention 2, or to receive usual care. The primary outcome was consistency of epinephrine-carrying, measured as the proportion of checkpoints at which a participant could successfully demonstrate they were carrying their EAI, with photo-documentation of the device.ResultsDuring Intervention 1, participants who received the intervention carried their EAI 28% of the time versus 38% for control group participants (P = .06). During Intervention 2, participations who received the intervention carried their EAI 45% of the time versus 23% for control group participants (P = .002).ConclusionsText message nudges alone were unsuccessful at promoting EAI-carrying but text message nudges combined with modest financial incentives almost doubled EAI-carriage rates among those who received the intervention compared with the control group. However, even with the intervention, adolescents with food allergies carried their EAI <50% of the time. Alternative strategies for making EAIs accessible to adolescents at all times should be implemented.
| S-EPMC9890392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveFixed incentives have been largely unsuccessful in improving adherence to antiretroviral medication. Therefore, we evaluate whether small incentives based on behavioral economic theory can increase adherence to antiretroviral medication among treatment-mature adults in Kampala, Uganda.DesignA randomized control trial design tests whether providing small incentives based on either attending timely clinic visits (intervention group 1) or achieving high medication adherence (intervention group 2) can increase antiretroviral adherence. Antiretroviral adherence is measured by medical event monitoring system (MEMS) caps.MethodsOverall, 155 HIV-infected men and women age 19-78 were randomized into one of two intervention groups and received small prizes of US $1.50 awarded through a drawing conditional on either attending scheduled clinic appointments or achieving at least 90% antiretroviral adherence. The control group received the usual standard of care.ResultsPreliminary results based on pooling the intervention groups showed individuals receiving incentives were 23.7 percentage points more likely to achieve 90% antiretroviral adherence compared with the control group [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.7-40.7%]. Specifically, 63.3% (95% CI, 52.9-72.8%) of participants in the pooled intervention groups maintained at least 90% mean adherence during the first 9 months of the intervention, compared with 39.6% (95% CI, 25.8-54.7%) in the control group.ConclusionSmall prize incentives resulted in a statistically significant increase in antiretroviral adherence. Although more traditional fixed incentives have not produced the desired results, these findings suggest that small incentives based on behavioral economic theory may be more effective in motivating long-term adherence among treatment-mature adults.
| S-EPMC5502075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceColonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered top-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Behavioral economic insights about "choice architecture" suggest that participation could be influenced by how people are presented test options.ObjectiveTo investigate response rates for offering colonoscopy only compared with sequential choice (colonoscopy and then FIT) or active choice (colonoscopy or FIT) through mailed outreach.Design, setting, and participantsThree-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted between November 14, 2017, and May 14, 2018. The setting was primary care practices at an academic health system. Patients aged 50 to 74 years with at least 2 primary care visits in the 2-year preenrollment period were included if they were eligible but not up to date on CRC screening.InterventionsEligible patients received mailed outreach about CRC screening. Equal numbers of eligible patients were randomly assigned to 3 outreach groups to receive mailings about CRC screening with the following options: (1) direct phone number to call for scheduling colonoscopy (colonoscopy only), (2) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit if no response within 4 weeks (sequential choice), or (3) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit offered at the same time (active choice).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was CRC screening completion (FIT or colonoscopy) within 4 months of initial outreach. The secondary outcomes were CRC screening completion within 6 months of outreach and the choice of colonoscopy as a screening test.ResultsIn total, 438 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis, with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range, 52-63 years); 55.0% were women. At 4 months, the CRC screening completion rates were 14.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-20.1%) in the colonoscopy-only arm, 17.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-23.2%) in the sequential choice arm, and 19.9% (95% CI, 13.4%-26.4%) in the active choice arm. Neither choice arm achieved a screening rate statistically greater than that in the colonoscopy-alone arm. Among those who completed CRC screening at 4 months, 90.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-103.0%) chose colonoscopy in the colonoscopy-only arm, which was significantly higher than the 52.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-71.6%; P = .005) and 37.9% (95% CI, 20.2%-55.6%; P < .001) in the sequential choice and active choice arms, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThere was no significant increase in CRC screening when offering sequential or active choice, but there was a lower rate of colonoscopy in the choice arms than in the colonoscopy-only arm. Subtle changes in sequencing or defaults can alter patient decision making related to preventive health.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03246438.
| S-EPMC6724166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer is a major health burden. Screening is recommended in many countries.ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in a population-based trial.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial of 100,210 individuals aged 50 to 64 years, identified from the population of Oslo city and Telemark County, Norway. Screening was performed in 1999-2000 (55-64-year age group) and in 2001 (50-54-year age group), with follow-up ending December 31, 2011. Of those selected, 1415 were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer, emigration, or death, and 3 could not be traced in the population registry.InterventionsParticipants randomized to the screening group were invited to undergo screening. Within the screening group, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or combination of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Participants with positive screening test results (cancer, adenoma, polyp ≥10 mm, or positive FOBT) were offered colonoscopy. The control group received no intervention.Main outcomes and measuresColorectal cancer incidence and mortality.ResultsA total of 98,792 participants were included in the intention-to-screen analyses, of whom 78,220 comprised the control group and 20,572 comprised the screening group (10,283 randomized to receive a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 10,289 to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT). Adherence with screening was 63%. After a median of 10.9 years, 71 participants died of colorectal cancer in the screening group vs 330 in the control group (31.4 vs 43.1 deaths per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 11.7 [95% CI, 3.0-20.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 253 participants in the screening group vs 1086 in the control group (112.6 vs 141.0 cases per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 28.4 [95% CI, 12.1-44.7]; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.92]). Colorectal cancer incidence was reduced in both the 50- to 54-year age group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94) and the 55- to 64-year age group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96). There was no difference between the flexible sigmoidoscopy only vs the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT screening groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn Norway, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening or flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality on a population level compared with no screening. Screening was effective both in the 50- to 54-year and the 55- to 64-year age groups.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119912.
| S-EPMC4495882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProvider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.PurposeTo compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening.DesignTwo-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention.Setting/participantsAfrican-American patients that were non-adherent to CRC screening recommendations (n=693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics.InterventionParticipants received either a computer-delivered tailored CRC screening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure about CRC screening immediately prior to their primary care visit.Main outcome measuresBetween-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects on CRC screening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012.ResultsCompared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63% vs 48%, OR=1.81, p<0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values <0.05).ConclusionsThe computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also were more likely to have a CRC screening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00672828.
| S-EPMC3601582 | biostudies-literature