Financial disincentives? A three-armed randomised controlled trial of the effect of financial Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) trial.
Financial disincentives? A three-armed randomised controlled trial of the effect of financial Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311778
复制
发表时间：
2018-08
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bicknell C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Judah G;Darzi A;Vlaev I;Gunn L;King D;King D;Valabhji J;Bicknell C
有证据表明，财政激励措施对鼓励参加体检预约有影响。主要目的是确定是否财政激励措施增加出席糖尿病眼筛查在持续的非出席者。2015年在伦敦进行了一项三组随机对照试验。1051名年龄在16岁以上，2年或更长时间没有参加眼科筛查预约的参与者被随机分配（1.4：1：1的随机化比例），接受通常的邀请函（对照），参加筛查的10英镑现金（固定奖励）或如果他们参加，则有1/100的机会赢得1000英镑（彩票奖励）。主要结果是受邀者参加筛选的比例，并进行了比较分析，以评估组间差异。对出勤率进行了成对比较，使用保守的Bonferroni校正进行独立比较。对照组34/435人（7.8%）、固定激励组17/312人（5.5%）和彩票激励组10/304人（3.3%）参加了培训。与对照组相比，接受任何激励的参与者参加约会的可能性显着降低（风险比（RR）=0.56; 95%CI 0.34至0.92）。概率激励组（RR=0.42; 95%CI 0.18 - 0.98）的参与率显著低于对照组，而固定激励组（RR=1.66; 95%CI 0.65 - 4.21）的参与率则无显著差异。在该人群中，财政激励措施，特别是基于彩票的激励措施，吸引的糖尿病眼科筛查患者少于标准邀请。不应使用财政奖励来促进筛查，除非在特定情况下进行测试，因为它们可能对出勤率产生负面影响。
Conflicting evidence exists regarding the impact of financial incentives on encouraging attendance at medical screening appointments. The primary aim was to determine whether financial incentives increase attendance at diabetic eye screening in persistent non-attenders. A three-armed randomised controlled trial was conducted in London in 2015. 1051 participants aged over 16 years, who had not attended eye screening appointments for 2 years or more, were randomised (1.4:1:1 randomisation ratio) to receive the usual invitation letter (control), an offer of £10 cash for attending screening (fixed incentive) or a 1 in 100 chance of winning £1000 (lottery incentive) if they attend. The primary outcome was the proportion of invitees attending screening, and a comparative analysis was performed to assess group differences. Pairwise comparisons of attendance rates were performed, using a conservative Bonferroni correction for independent comparisons. 34/435 (7.8%) of control, 17/312 (5.5%) of fixed incentive and 10/304 (3.3%) of lottery incentive groups attended. Participants who received any incentive were significantly less likely to attend their appointment compared with controls (risk ratio (RR)=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92). Those in the probabilistic incentive group (RR=0.42; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.98), but not the fixed incentive group (RR=1.66; 95% CI 0.65 to 4.21), were significantly less likely to attend than those in the control group. Financial incentives, particularly lottery-based incentives, attract fewer patients to diabetic eye screening than standard invites in this population. Financial incentives should not be used to promote screening unless tested in context, as they may negatively affect attendance rates.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Volpp, Kevin G.;John, Leslie K.;Troxel, Andrea B.;Norton, Laurie;Fassbender, Jennifer;Loewenstein, George
通讯作者：
Loewenstein, George
影响因子：
8.4
作者：
Gneezy, Uri;Meier, Stephan;Rey-Biel, Pedro
通讯作者：
Rey-Biel, Pedro
个人经济激励措施改变了与健康相关的行为：系统评价和荟萃分析。
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Mantzari E;Vogt F;Shemilt I;Wei Y;Higgins JP;Marteau TM
通讯作者：
Marteau TM
影响因子：
2
作者：
Judah G;Vlaev I;Gunn L;King D;King D;Valabhji J;Darzi A;Bicknell C
通讯作者：
Bicknell C
影响因子：
6.1
作者：
KAHNEMAN, D;TVERSKY, A
通讯作者：
TVERSKY, A