Money for medication: a randomized controlled study on the effectiveness of financial incentives to improve medication adherence in patients with psychotic disorders

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Contingency Management for Substance Use Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries

BACKGROUND

The impact of illicit substance use is especially devastating in low-resourced countries where factors such as poverty, unemployment, and inadequate services impede successful treatment. Contingency management (CM) is a treatment for substance use disorders that has shown to be effective in eliciting behaviour change. The efficacy of CM interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs) has been under explored.

METHODS

The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess measures of CM efficacy in addressing substance use disorders, while also considering contextual moderators of CM in LMICs. A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases yielded 18 studies for inclusion, from which relevant data were extracted using modified versions of the Cochrane Characteristics of Studies tool.

RESULTS

Two studies were located in a low-income country, two in lower-middle income countries, and fourteen in upper middle-income countries. Overall, estimated efficacy estimates were similar to those from higher income countries. However, context-specific challenges that warrant further investigation included limited access to trained staff and structural and financial constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

While CM in LMICs is in its early stages of development, efficacy estimates were not substantially different compared to high income countries. Challenges such as costs, willingness to implement, and the stigma associated with addiction sets the stage for further research in these contexts.

Can incentives improve antipsychotic adherence in major mental illness? A mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Incentives have been effectively used in several healthcare contexts. This systematic review aimed to ascertain whether incentives can improve antipsychotic adherence, what ethical and practical issues arise and whether existing evidence resolves these issues.

DESIGN

Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Searches on 13 January 2021 (no start date) found papers on incentives for antipsychotics. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, qualitative research and ethical analyses were included. Papers measuring impact on adherence were synthesised, then a typology of ethical and policy issues was compiled, finally the empirical literature was compared with this typology to describe current evidence and identify remaining research questions.

RESULTS

26 papers were included. 2 RCTs used contingent financial incentives for long-acting injectable antipsychotic preparations. Over 12 months, there were significantly larger increases in adherence among the intervention groups versus control groups in both RCTs. There were no consistently positive secondary outcomes. 39 ethical and practical issues were identified. 12 of these are amenable to empirical study but have not been researched and for 7 the current evidence is mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

In keeping with other areas of healthcare, antipsychotic adherence can be increased with financial incentives. Payments of 2.5 times minimum wage changed behaviour. The typology of issues reported in this systematic review provides a template for future policy and ethical analysis. The persistence of the effect and the impact of incentives on intrinsic motivation require further research.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020222702.

Factors Influencing Adherence to Antipsychotic Medications in Women with Delusional Disorder: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Adherence to medication regimens is of great importance in psychiatry because drugs sometimes need to be taken for long durations in order to maintain health and function.

OBJECTIVE

To review influences on adherence to antipsychotic medications, the treatment of choice for delusional disorder (DD), and to focus on adherence in women with DD.

METHOD

A non-systematic narrative review of papers published since 2000 using PubMed and Google Scholar and focusing on women with DD and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Several factors have been identified as exerting influence on adherence in women with persistent delusional symptoms who are treated with antipsychotics. Personality features, intensity of delusion, perception of adverse effects, and cognitive impairment are patient factors. Clinical time spent with the patient, clarity of communication and regular drug monitoring are responsibilities of the health provider. Factors that neither patient nor clinician can control are the social determinants of health such as poverty, easy access to healthcare, and cultural variables.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been little investigation into factors that influence adherence in the target population discussed here -e.g. women with DD. Preliminary results of this literature search indicate that solutions from outside the field of DD may apply to this population. Overall, a solid therapeutic alliance appears to be the best hedge against non-adherence.

Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Contingency Management for Patients with Both Psychotic Disorders and Substance Use Disorders

Background: Substance use disorders (SUD) are highly prevalent among psychotic patients and are associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes. Effective interventions for this clinical population are scarce and challenging. Contingency management (CM) is one of the most evidence-based treatments for SUD’s, however, a meta-analysis of the effect of CM in patients with a dual diagnosis of psychotic disorder and SUD has not been performed. Methods: We searched PubMed and PsycINFO databases up to December 2020. Results: Five controlled trials involving 892 patients were included. CM is effective on abstinence rates, measured by the number of self-reported days of using after intervention (95% CI −0.98 to −0.06) and by the number of negative breath or urine samples after intervention (OR 2.13; 95% CI 0.97 to 4.69) and follow-up (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.08). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows a potential effect of CM on abstinence for patients with SUD and (severe) psychotic disorders, although the number of studies is limited. Additional longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the sustained effectivity of CM and give support for a larger clinical implementation of CM within services targeting these vulnerable co-morbid patients.

Financial incentives for objectively-measured physical activity or weight loss in adults with chronic health conditions: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of financial incentives (FI) on objectively-measured physical activity (PA) and weight loss (WL) in adults with sedentary behavior or chronic health conditions.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We performed a systematic search for RCTs published in English indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Web of Science through July 27, 2017. We limited our search to RCTs that involved an FI intervention with a monetary component, objectively-measured PA or WL outcomes, samples with either sedentary lifestyles or chronic health conditions, and a comparator group that did not receive performance-contingent FI. We calculated the mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) for each study and used a random effects model to summarize intervention efficacy. We used the Jadad scoring tool to assess the quality of the identified articles.

RESULTS

We abstracted data from 11 RCTs. Two of the 11 included studies focused on PA, totaling 126 intervention and 116 control subjects. Nine RCTs evaluated the effect of FI on WL, totaling 1,799 intervention and 1,483 control subjects. The combined estimate for change in daily steps was 940 (95%CI [306-1,574]) more in PA intervention groups than in control groups and 2.36 (95%CI [1.80-2.93]) more kilograms lost by WL intervention groups compared to control groups. The overall estimated SMD for both outcomes combined was 0.395 (95%CI [0.243-0.546; p<0.001]), favoring FI interventions.

CONCLUSION

FI interventions are efficacious in increasing PA and WL in adults with chronic conditions or sedentary adults. Public health programs to increase PA or prevent chronic disease should consider incorporating FI to improve outcomes.

Medical and social costs after using financial incentives to improve medication adherence: results of a 1 year randomised controlled trial

Objective

Offering a financial incentive (‘Money for Medication’) is effective in improving adherence to treatment with depot antipsychotic medications. We investigated the cost-effectiveness in terms of medical costs and judicial expenses of using financial incentives to improve adherence. The effects of financial incentives on depot medication adherence were evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group received €30 a month over 12 months if antipsychotic depot medication was accepted. The control group received mental health care as usual. For 133 patients outcomes were calculated based on self-reported service use and delinquent behaviour and expressed as standard unit costs to value resource use.

Results

The financial incentive resulted in higher average costs related to mental health care (€449.6 versus €355.7). and lower medical costs related to other healthcare services (€52.0 versus €78.4). Relevant differences in social costs related to delinquent behaviour were not found. Although wide confidence intervals indicate uncertainty, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio’s (ICER) indicate that it costs €2080 for achieving a 20% increase in adherence or €3332 for achieving over 80% adherence. In sum, offering money as financial incentive for increasing compliance did not lead to an overall cost reduction as compared to care as usual.

Trial registration NTR2350, 01 June 2010

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3747-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients' views of a behavioral intervention including financial incentives

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials are increasingly testing the effectiveness of paying patients' financial incentives for achieving desired clinical outcomes. Some researchers and providers are concerned that patient financial incentives will harm the doctor-patient relationship. How patients feel about these approaches, and these trials, is largely unknown. This study examined patients' perceptions of a compound behavioral and financial incentive intervention used in a large multicenter trial to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), including their perceptions of benefits and challenges and the study's effect on patients' relationship with their primary care physicians (PCPs).

STUDY DESIGN

Semi-structured telephone interviews with patients post intervention.

METHODS

PCPs from 3 primary care practices in the northeastern United States were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: physician financial incentives, patient financial incentives, shared incentives between physicians and patients, and a control arm. Within each arm, 10 high, 10 medium, and 10 low performers in LDL-C reduction were interviewed. Interviews targeted reasons for enrolling in the study, the specific intervention elements that helped them reach the goal (incentives, engagement, monitoring), challenges faced in reducing cholesterol, and the impact of study participation on their relationship with their PCP.

RESULTS

Patients reported positive experiences with the study: 65% described personal changes to improve health and 61% reported increased awareness. Views about financial incentives varied: 71% clearly found them motivating and 36% claimed they made no difference. Patients noted that changing lifestyle (36%) and diet (65%) was difficult. Patients who substantially lowered their LDL-C revealed themes similar to those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, behavioral interventions with financial incentives appear to be socially acceptable to patients who participate in them. Both adherence monitoring and financial incentives were well received, with little effect on the physician-patient relationship.

Financial incentives for improving adherence to maintenance treatment in patients with psychotic disorders (Money for Medication): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Provision of financial incentives is a promising intervention for improving adherence in patients taking antipsychotic medication. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of this intervention for improving adherence to antipsychotic depot medication in patients with psychotic disorders, irrespective of their previous compliance.

METHODS

We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at three mental health-care institutions in secondary psychiatric care services in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, had been prescribed antipsychotic depot medication or had an indication to start using depot medication, and were participating in outpatient treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with a block size of four, to receive 12 months of either treatment as usual plus a financial reward for each depot of medication received (€30 per month if fully compliant; intervention group) or treatment as usual alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by treatment site and suspected prognostic factors: sex, comorbid substance-use disorder (absent vs present), and compliance with antipsychotic medication in the 4 months before baseline (<50% vs ≥50%). Patients, clinicians, interviewers, and research assistants were masked to group allocation before, but not after, group assignment. The primary outcome was the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), defined as the number of depots of antipsychotic medication received divided by the total number of depots of antipsychotic medication prescribed during the 12 month intervention period. Patients were followed up for 6 months, during which time no monetary rewards were offered for taking antipsychotic medication. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2350.

FINDINGS

Between May 21, 2010, and Oct 15, 2014, we randomly assigned 169 patients to the intervention group (n=84) or the control group (n=85). Primary outcome data were available for 155 (92%) patients. At baseline, the mean MPR was 76·0% (SD 28·2%) in the intervention group versus 77·9% (28·5%) in the control group. At 12 months, the mean MPR was higher in the intervention group (94·3% [SD 11·3%]) than in the control group (80·3% [19·1%]), with an adjusted difference of 14·9% (95% CI 8·9-20·9%; p<0·0001). This difference was maintained throughout the 6 month follow-up period: mean MPR of 86·6% (SD 22·2%) in the intervention group versus 76·0% (22·7%) in the control group (adjusted difference 6·5%, 95% CI 2·0-10·9; p=0·047).

INTERPRETATION

Financial incentives are an effective way of improving adherence to antipsychotic depot medication among patients with psychotic disorders. Further research is needed to study the long-term effects of this intervention.

FUNDING

Dual Diagnosis Center.

Depot-medication compliance for patients with psychotic disorders: the importance of illness insight and treatment motivation

BACKGROUND

Noncompliance is a major problem for patients with a psychotic disorder. Two important risk factors for noncompliance that have a severe negative impact on treatment outcomes are impaired illness insight and lack of motivation. Our cross-sectional study explored how they are related to each other and their compliance with depot medication.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted in 169 outpatients with a psychotic disorder taking depot medication. Four patient groups were defined based on low or high illness insight and on low or high motivation. The associations between depot-medication compliance, motivation, and insight were illustrated using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Generalized linear model showed a significant interaction effect between motivation and insight. Patients with poor insight and high motivation for treatment were more compliant (94%) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.821, 3.489) with their depot medication than patients with poor insight and low motivation (61%) (95% CI: 0.288, 0.615). Patients with both insight and high motivation for treatment were less compliant (73%) (95% CI: 0.719, 1.315) than those with poor insight and high motivation.

CONCLUSION

Motivation for treatment was more strongly associated with depot-medication compliance than with illness insight. Being motivated to take medication, whether to get better or for other reasons, may be a more important factor than having illness insight in terms of improving depot-medication compliance. Possible implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Financial Incentives to Promote Adherence to Depot Antipsychotic Medication: Economic Evaluation of a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

Background

Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis can promote adherence to depot antipsychotic medication, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been examined.

Methods

Economic evaluation within a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. 141 patients under the care of 73 teams (clusters) were randomised to intervention or control; 138 patients with diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder or bipolar disorder participated. Intervention participants received £15 per depot injection over 12 months, additional to usual acute, mental and community primary health services. The control group received usual health services. Main outcome measures: incremental cost per 20% increase in adherence to depot antipsychotic medication; incremental cost of ‘good’ adherence (defined as taking at least 95% of the prescribed number of depot medications over the intervention period).

Findings

Economic and outcome data for baseline and 12-month follow-up were available for 117 participants. The adjusted difference in adherence between groups was 12.2% (73.4% control vs. 85.6% intervention); the adjusted costs difference was £598 (95% CI -£4 533, £5 730). The extra cost per patient to increase adherence to depot medications by 20% was £982 (95% CI -£8 020, £14 000). The extra cost per patient of achieving 'good' adherence was £2 950 (CI -£19 400, £27 800). Probability of cost-effectiveness exceeded 97.5% at willingness-to-pay values of £14 000 for a 20% increase in adherence and £27 800 for good adherence.

Interpretation

Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis is cost-effective in promoting adherence to depot antipsychotic medication. Direct healthcare costs (including costs of the financial incentive) are unlikely to be increased by this intervention.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN.com 77769281