Perceived ethical acceptability of financial incentives to improve diabetic eye screening attendance

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Diabetic Retinopathy Screening by a Community-Based Health Insurance Plan in Central Texas - 2017

PURPOSE

Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. In the United States, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is 26% - 33%. Providing preventive care to individuals with diabetes is important to prevent microvascular complications in the eye. This study reports on the results of a randomized controlled trial to determine how using specific cues to action combined with the provision of a free eye exam might positively influence the rate of diabetic retinopathy screening among individuals with diabetes.

METHODS

Individuals were eligible to participate in this campaign if they had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or were prescribed a diabetes drug, were members of the health insurance plan during the intervention period and had no evidence of receiving a retinal eye exam prior to the campaign period. The six-week campaign period started on September 19, 2017 and ended on October 31, 2017. A total of 1,454 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to a control group or to one of three intervention groups. Each intervention group included the provision of a free eye exam.

RESULTS

A total of 148 (10.1%) individuals obtained a retinal eye exam during the six-week campaign period with 38 persons (6.8%) in the control group, 38 (15.3%) in the incentive group, 41 (16.5%) in the education group, and 31 (12.4%) in the incentive and education group. Individual intervention comparisons with the referent group yielded statistical significance using the adjusted pairwise alpha of P = .008 for the incentive group (RR = 2.08; 95% CI, 1.36-3.19; P =.0006) and for the education group (RR = 2.23; 95% CI, 1.47-3.39; P =.0001), but not in the incentive plus education group (RR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.10-2.73; P =.017).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the use of targeted cues to action combined with the provision of a free eye exam to increase the rates of diabetic retinopathy screening among individuals with diabetes who have health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act in a Central Texas population.

Acceptability of financial incentives for health-related behavior change: An updated systematic review

Despite the successes of financial incentives in increasing uptake of evidence-based interventions, acceptability is polarized. Given widespread interest in the use of financial incentives, we update findings from Giles and colleagues' 2015 systematic review (n = 81). The objectives of this systematic review are to identify what is known about financial incentives directed to patients for health-related behavior change, assess how acceptability varies, and address which aspects and features of financial incentives are potentially acceptable and not acceptable, and why. PRISMA guidelines were used for searching peer-reviewed journals across 10 electronic databases. We included empirical and non-empirical papers published between 1/1/14 and 6/1/18. After removal of duplicates, abstract screening, and full-text reviews, 47 papers (n = 31 empirical, n = 16 scholarly) met inclusion criteria. We assessed empirical papers for risk of bias and conducted a content analysis of extracted data to synthesize key findings. Five themes related to acceptability emerged from the data: fairness, messaging, character, liberty, and tradeoffs. The wide range of stakeholders generally preferred rewards over penalties, vouchers over cash, smaller values over large, and certain rewards over lotteries. Deposits were viewed unfavorably. Findings were mixed on acceptability of targeting specific populations. Breastfeeding, medication adherence, smoking cessation, and vaccination presented as more complicated incentive targets than physical activity, weight loss, and self-management. As researchers, clinicians, and policymakers explore the use of financial incentives for challenging health behaviors, additional research is needed to understand how acceptability influences uptake and ultimately health outcomes.

Changing health behaviors using financial incentives: a review from behavioral economics

BACKGROUND

Incentives are central to economics and are used across the public and private sectors to influence behavior. Recent interest has been shown in using financial incentives to promote desirable health behaviors and discourage unhealthy ones.

MAIN TEXT

If we are going to use incentive schemes to influence health behaviors, then it is important that we give them the best chance of working. Behavioral economics integrates insights from psychology with the laws of economics and provides a number of robust psychological phenomena that help to better explain human behavior. Individuals' decisions in relation to incentives may be shaped by more subtle features - such as loss aversion, overweighting of small probabilities, hyperbolic discounting, increasing payoffs, reference points - many of which have been identified through research in behavioral economics. If incentives are shown to be a useful strategy to influence health behavior, a wider discussion will need to be had about the ethical dimensions of incentives before their wider implementation in different health programmes.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers across the world are increasingly taking note of lessons from behavioral economics and this paper explores how key principles could help public health practitioners design effective interventions both in relation to incentive designs and more widely.

A descriptive study of potential participant preferences for the design of an incentivised weight loss programme for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending a public hospital in Lima, Peru

Background: Weight loss is important for the control of type 2 diabetes mellitus but is difficult to achieve and sustain. Programmes employing financial incentives have been successful in areas such as smoking cessation. However, the optimum design for an incentivised programme for weight loss is undetermined, and may depend on social, cultural and demographic factors. Methods: An original questionnaire was designed whose items addressed respondent personal and health characteristics, and preferences for a hypothetical incentivised weight loss programme. One hundred people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited to complete the questionnaire from the endocrinology clinic of a public hospital in Lima, Peru. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed. Results: Ninety-five percent of subjects who had previously attempted to lose weight had found this either 'difficult' or 'very difficult'. Eighty-five percent of subjects would participate in an incentivised weight loss programme. Median suggested incentive for 1 kg weight loss every 2 weeks over 9 months was PEN 100 (~USD $30). Cash was preferred by 70% as payment method. Only 56% of subjects would participate in a deposit-contract scheme, and the median suggested deposit amount was PEN 20 (~USD $6). Eighty percent of subjects would share the incentive with a helper, and family members were the most common choice of helper. Conclusions: The challenge of achieving and sustaining weight loss is confirmed in this setting. Direct cash payments of PEN 100 were generally preferred, with substantial scope for involving a co-participant with whom the incentive could be shared. Employing direct financial incentives in future weight loss programmes appears to be widely acceptable among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

A descriptive study of potential participant preferences for the design of an incentivised weight loss programme for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending a public hospital in Lima, Peru

Background: Weight loss is important for the control of type 2 diabetes mellitus but is difficult to achieve and sustain. Programmes employing financial incentives have been successful in areas such as smoking cessation. However, the optimum design for an incentivised programme for weight loss is undetermined, and may depend on social, cultural and demographic factors. Methods: An original questionnaire was designed whose items addressed respondent personal and health characteristics, and preferences for a hypothetical incentivised weight loss programme. One hundred people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited to complete the questionnaire from the endocrinology clinic of a public hospital in Lima, Peru. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed. Results: Ninety-five percent of subjects who had previously attempted to lose weight had found this either 'difficult' or 'very difficult'. Eighty-five percent of subjects would participate in an incentivised weight loss programme. Median suggested incentive for 1 kg weight loss every 2 weeks over 9 months was PEN 100 (~USD $30). Cash was preferred by 70% as payment method. Only 56% of subjects would participate in a deposit-contract scheme, and the median suggested deposit amount was PEN 20 (~USD $6). Eighty percent of subjects would share the incentive with a helper, and family members were the most common choice of helper. Conclusions: The challenge of achieving and sustaining weight loss is confirmed in this setting. Direct cash payments of PEN 100 were generally preferred, with substantial scope for involving a co-participant with whom the incentive could be shared. Employing direct financial incentives in future weight loss programmes appears to be widely acceptable among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) trial: a three-armed randomised controlled trial of financial incentives

Background

The UK national diabetic eye screening (DES) programme invites diabetic patients aged > 12 years annually. Simple and cost-effective methods are needed to increase screening uptake. This trial tests the impact on uptake of two financial incentive schemes, based on behavioural economic principles.

Objectives

To test whether or not financial incentives encourage screening attendance. Secondarily to understand if the type of financial incentive scheme used affects screening uptake or attracts patients with a different sociodemographic status to regular attenders. If financial incentives were found to improve attendance, then a final objective was to test cost-effectiveness.

Design

Three-armed randomised controlled trial.

Setting

DES clinic within St Mary’s Hospital, London, covering patients from the areas of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster.

Participants

Patients aged ≥ 16 years, who had not attended their DES appointment for ≥ 2 years.

Interventions

(1) Fixed incentive – invitation letter and £10 for attending screening; (2) probabilistic (lottery) incentive – invitation letter and 1% chance of winning £1000 for attending screening; and (3) control – invitation letter only.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was screening attendance. Rates for control versus fixed and lottery incentive groups were compared using relative risk (RR) and risk difference with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 1274 patients were eligible and randomised; 223 patients became ineligible before invite and 1051 participants were invited (control,n = 435; fixed group,n = 312; lottery group,n = 304). Thirty-four (7.8%, 95% CI 5.29% to 10.34%) control, 17 (5.5%, 95% CI 2.93% to 7.97%) fixed group and 10 (3.3%, 95% CI 1.28% to 5.29%) lottery group participants attended. Participants offered incentives were 44% less likely to attend screening than controls (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92). Examining incentive groups separately, the lottery group were 58% less likely to attend screening than controls (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.98). No significant differences were found between fixed incentive and control groups (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.39) or between fixed and lottery incentive groups (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.65 to 4.21). Subgroup analyses showed no significant associations between attendance and sociodemographic factors, including gender (female vs. male, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.03), age (≤ 65 years vs. > 65 years, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.08), deprivation [0–20 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) decile vs. 30–100 IMD decile, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83], years registered [mean difference (MD) –0.13, 95% CI –0.69 to 0.43], and distance from screening location (MD –0.18, 95% CI –0.65 to 0.29).

Limitations

Despite verification, some address details may have been outdated, and high ethnic diversity may have resulted in language barriers for participants.

Conclusions

Those receiving incentives were not more likely to attend a DES than those receiving a usual invitation letter in patients who are regular non-attenders. Both fixed and lottery incentives appeared to reduce attendance. Overall, there is no evidence to support the use of financial incentives to promote diabetic retinopathy screening. Testing interventions in context, even if they appear to be supported by theory, is important.

Future work

Future research, specifically in this area, should focus on identifying barriers to screening and other non-financial methods to overcome them.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14896403.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 5, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS): study protocol of a three-arm randomized controlled trial using financial incentives to increase screening uptake in London

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is an increasing public health problem in the UK and globally. Diabetic retinopathy is a microvascular complication of diabetes, and is one of the leading causes of blindness in the UK working age population. The diabetic eye screening programme in England aims to invite all people with diabetes aged 12 or over for retinal photography to screen for the presence of diabetic retinopathy. However, attendance rates are only 81 %, leaving many people at risk of preventable sight loss.

METHODS

This is a three arm randomized controlled trial to investigate the impact of different types of financial incentives (based on principles from behavioral economics) on increasing attendance at diabetic eye screening appointments in London. Eligible participants will be aged 16 or over, and are those who have been invited to screening appointments annually, but who have not attended, or telephoned to rearrange an appointment, within the last 24 months. Eligible participants will be randomized to one of three conditions: 1. Control condition (usual invitation letter) 2. Fixed incentive condition (usual invitation letter, including a voucher for £10 if they attend their appointment) 3. Probabilistic incentive condition (invitation letter, including a voucher for a 1 in 100 chance of winning £1000 if they attend their appointment). Participants will be sent invitation letters, and the primary outcome will be whether or not they attend their appointment. One thousand participants will be included in total, randomized with a ratio of 1.4:1:1. In order to test whether the incentive scheme has a differential impact on patients from different demographic or socio-economic groups, information will be recorded on age, gender, distance from screening center, socio-economic status and length of time since they were last screened. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first trial of financial incentives for improving uptake of diabetic eye screening. If effective, the intervention may suggest a cost-effective way to increase screening rates, thus reducing unnecessary blindness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN14896403, 25 February 2016.