Coupling Financial Incentives With Direct Mail in Population-Based Practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan S. Slater ◽  
Michael J. Parks ◽  
Michael E. Malone ◽  
George A. Henly ◽  
Christina L. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Direct Mail ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Fee For Service

Financial incentives are being used increasingly to encourage a wide array of health behaviors because of their well-established efficacy. However, little is known about how to translate incentive-based strategies to public health practice geared toward improving population-level health, and a dearth of research exists on how individuals respond to incentives through public health communication strategies such as direct mail. This study reports results of a population-based randomized controlled trial testing a direct mail, incentive-based intervention for promoting mammography uptake. The study population was composed of a random sample of Minnesota women enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service and overdue for breast cancer screening. Participants ( N = 18,939) were randomized into three groups: (1) Direct Mail only, (2) Direct Mail plus Incentive, and (3) Control. Both direct mail groups received two mailers with a message about the importance of mammography; however, Mail plus Incentive mailers also offered a $25 incentive for getting a mammogram. Logistic regression analyses measured intervention effects. Results showed the odds for receiving mammography were significantly higher for the Direct Mail plus Incentive group compared with both Direct Mail only and Control groups. The use of incentives also proved to be cost-effective. Additionally, the Direct Mail only group was more likely to receive mammography than the Control group. Findings offer experimental evidence on how the population-based strategy of direct mail coupled with a financial incentive can encourage healthy behavior, as well as how incentive-based programs can be translated into health promotion practice aimed at achieving population-level impact.

scholarly journals Randomised controlled trial of a financial incentive for increasing the number of daily walking steps: study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e026086
Author(s):  
Yasutake Tomata ◽  
Fumiya Tanji ◽  
Dieta Nurrika ◽  
Yingxu Liu ◽  
Saho Abe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Modifiable Factors ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPhysical activity is one of the major modifiable factors for promotion of public health. Although it has been reported that financial incentives would be effective for promoting health behaviours such as smoking cessation or attendance for cancer screening, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the effect of financial incentives for increasing the number of daily steps among individuals in a community setting. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of financial incentives for increasing the number of daily steps among community-dwelling adults in Japan.Methods and analysisThis study will be a two-arm, parallel-group RCT. We will recruit community-dwelling adults who are physically inactive in a suburban area (Nakayama) of Sendai city, Japan, using leaflets and posters. Participants that meet the inclusion criteria will be randomly allocated to an intervention group or a waitlist control group. The intervention group will be offered a financial incentive (a chance to get shopping points) if participants increase their daily steps from their baseline. The primary outcome will be the average increase in the number of daily steps (at 4–6 weeks and 7–9 weeks) relative to the average number of daily steps at the baseline (1–3 weeks). For the sample size calculation, we assumed that the difference of primary outcome would be 1302 steps.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been ethically approved by the research ethics committee of Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan (No. 2018-1-171). The results will be submitted and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trial registration numberUMIN000033276; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy: multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. e065217
Author(s):  
Ivan Berlin ◽  
Noémi Berlin ◽  
Marie Malecot ◽  
Martine Breton ◽  
Florence Jusot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Abstinence Rate ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Smoking Abstinence ◽  
Pregnant Smokers

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of financial incentives dependent on continuous smoking abstinence on smoking cessation and birth outcomes among pregnant smokers.DesignSingle blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingFinancial Incentive for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy (FISCP) trial in 18 maternity wards in France.Participants460 pregnant smokers aged at least 18 years who smoked ≤5 cigarettes/day or ≤3 roll-your-own cigarettes/day and had a pregnancy gestation of <18 weeks were randomised to a financial incentives group (n=231) or a control group (n=229).InterventionsParticipants in the financial incentives group received a voucher equivalent to €20 (£17; $23), and further progressively increasing vouchers at each study visit if they remained abstinent. Participants in the control group received no financial incentive for abstinence. All participants received a €20 show-up fee at each of six visits.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was continuous smoking abstinence from the first post-quit date visit to visit 6, before delivery. Secondary outcomes in the mothers were point prevalence abstinence, time to smoking relapse, withdrawal symptoms, blood pressure, and alcohol and cannabis use in past 30 days. Secondary outcomes in the babies were gestational age at birth, birth characteristics (birth weight, length, head circumference, Apgar score), and a poor neonatal outcome—a composite measure of transfer to the neonatal unit, congenital malformation, convulsions, or perinatal death.ResultsMean age was 29 years. In the financial incentives and control groups, respectively, 137 (59%) and 148 (65%) were employed, 163 (71%) and 171 (75%) were in a relationship, and 41 (18%) and 31 (13%) were married. The participants had smoked a median of 60 cigarettes in the past seven days. The continuous abstinence rate was significantly higher in the financial incentives group (16%, 38/231) than control group (7%, 17/229): odds ratio 2.45 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 4.49), P=0.004). The point prevalence abstinence rate was higher (4.61, 1.41 to 15.01, P=0.011), the median time to relapse was longer (visit 5 (interquartile range 3-6) and visit 4 (3-6), P<0.001)), and craving for tobacco was lower (β=−1.81, 95% confidence interval −3.55 to −0.08, P=0.04) in the financial incentives group than control group. Financial incentives were associated with a 7% reduction in the risk of a poor neonatal outcome: 4 babies (2%) in the financial incentives group and 18 babies (9%) in the control group: mean difference 14 (95% confidence interval 5 to 23), P=0.003. Post hoc analyses suggested that more babies in the financial incentives group had birth weights ≥2500 g than in the control group: unadjusted odds ratio 1.95 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 3.85), P=0.055; sex adjusted odds ratio 2.05 (1.03 to 4.10), P=0.041; and sex and prematurity adjusted odds ratio 2.06 (0.90 to 4.71), P=0.086. As these are post hoc analyses, the results should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsFinancial incentives to reward smoking abstinence compared with no financial incentives were associated with an increased abstinence rate in pregnant smokers. Financial incentives dependent on smoking abstinence could be implemented as a safe and effective intervention to help pregnant smokers quit smoking.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02606227.

scholarly journals Financial Incentives for Preventing Postpartum Return to Smoking (Fipps): Study Protocol for a Three-Arm Randomised Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ussher ◽  
Cath Best ◽  
Sarah Lewis ◽  
Jennifer McKell ◽  
Tim Coleman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Smoking Relapse ◽  
Stop Smoking ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract BackgroundFinancial incentives are an effective way of helping women to stop smoking during pregnancy. Unfortunately, most women who stop smoking at this time return to smoking within 12 months of the infant’s birth. There is no evidence for interventions that are effective at preventing postpartum smoking relapse. Financial incentives provided after the birth may help women to sustain cessation. This randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of financial incentives to help women who are abstinent from smoking at end of pregnancy to avoid return to smoking up to 12 months postpartum. MethodsThis is a UK-based, multi-centre, three-arm, superiority, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with 1:1:1 allocation. It will compare the effectiveness of two financial incentive interventions with each other (one intervention for up to three months postpartum offering up to £120 of incentives, the other for up to 12 months postpartum with up to £300 of incentives) and with a no incentives/usual care control group. Eligible women will be between 34 weeks gestation and two weeks postpartum, abstinent from smoking for at least four weeks, have an expired carbon monoxide (CO) reading <4 parts per million (ppm), aged at least 16 years, intend remaining abstinent from smoking after the birth and able to speak and read English. The primary outcome is self-reported, lapse-free, smoking abstinence from the last quit attempt in pregnancy until 12 months postpartum, biochemically validated by expired CO and/or salivary cotinine or anabasine. Outcomes will be analysed by intention-to-treat and regression models used to compare the proportion of abstinent women between the two intervention groups and between each intervention group and the control group. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of offering incentives and a qualitative process evaluation will examine barriers and facilitators to trial retention, effectiveness and implementation. DiscussionThis pragmatic randomised controlled trial will test whether offering financial incentives is effective and cost-effective for helping women to avoid smoking relapse during the 12 months after the birth of their baby. Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: 55218215. Registered retrospectively on 5 th June 2019.

scholarly journals Perceptions of a food benefit program that includes financial incentives for the purchase of fruits and vegetables and restrictions on the purchase of foods high in added sugar

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Fatima A Fagbenro ◽  
Tessa Lasswell ◽  
Sarah A Rydell ◽  
J Michael Oakes ◽  
Brian Elbel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Added Sugar ◽  
Program Satisfaction ◽  
Food Purchasing ◽  
Households With Children ◽  
Participant Perspectives

ABSTRACT Objective To report perspectives of participants in a food benefit program that includes FAS restrictions and FAS restrictions paired with F/V incentives. Design Randomized experimental trial in which participant perspectives were an exploratory study outcome. Setting Participants were randomized into one of three SNAP-like food benefit program groups - (1) Restriction: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits; (2) Restriction paired with incentive: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits and 30% financial incentive on eligible F/V purchased using benefits; or (3) Control: Same food purchasing rules as SNAP. Participants were asked questions to assess program satisfaction. Participants Adults in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN metropolitan area, eligible for but not currently participating in SNAP who completed baseline and follow-up study measures (n=254). Results Among remaining households in each group, most found the program helpful in buying nutritious foods (88.2%-95.7%) and were satisfied with the program (89.1%-93.0%). Sensitivity analysis results indicate that reported helpfulness and satisfaction with the program may in some instances be lower among the Restriction and the Restrictions paired with Incentive groups in comparison to the control group. Conclusions A food benefit program that includes restriction on purchase of FAS or restriction paired with a financial incentive for F/V purchases may be acceptable to most SNAP-eligible households with children.

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

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaby Judah ◽  
Ara Darzi ◽  
Ivo Vlaev ◽  
Laura Gunn ◽  
Derek King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Fixed Group ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Screening Attendance ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesTo 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.DesignThree-armed randomised controlled trial.SettingDES clinic within St Mary’s Hospital, London, covering patients from the areas of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster.ParticipantsPatients 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 measuresThe 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).ResultsA 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).LimitationsDespite verification, some address details may have been outdated, and high ethnic diversity may have resulted in language barriers for participants.ConclusionsThose 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 workFuture research, specifically in this area, should focus on identifying barriers to screening and other non-financial methods to overcome them.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN14896403.FundingThis 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.

scholarly journals Tailored Medication Adherence Incentives Using mHealth for Children With High-Risk Asthma (TAICAM): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

10.2196/16711 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e16711
Author(s):  
Brittney R Henderson ◽  
Carina M Flaherty ◽  
G Chandler Floyd ◽  
Jack You ◽  
Rui Xiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Text Message ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroid ◽  
Target Sample Size ◽  
Sustained Effects ◽  
System Use ◽  
High Adherence

Background Poor adherence to inhaled corticosteroid medications for children with high-risk asthma is both well documented and poorly understood. It has a disproportionate prevalence and impact on children of minority demographics in urban settings. Financial incentives have been shown to be a compelling method to engage those in a high-risk asthma population, but whether adherence can be maintained by offering financial incentives and how these incentives can be used to sustain high adherence are unknown. Objective The aim of this study is to determine the marginal effects of a financial incentive–based intervention on inhaled corticosteroid adherence, health care system use, and costs. Methods Participants include children aged 5 to 12 years who have had either at least two hospitalizations or one hospitalization and one emergency department visit for asthma in the year prior to their enrollment (and their caregivers). Participants are given an electronic inhaler sensor in order to track their medication use over a period of 7 months. After a 1-month period of observation, participants are randomized to 1 of 3 arms for a 3-month period. Participants in arm 1 receive daily text message reminders, feedback, and gain–framed, nominal financial incentives; participants in arm 2 receive daily text message reminders and feedback only, and participants in arm 3 receive no reminders, feedback, or incentives. All participants are subsequently observed for an additional 3-month period with no reminders, feedback, or incentives to assess whether any sustained effects are apparent. Results Study enrollment began in September 2019 with a target sample size of N=125 children. As of June 2020, 61 children have been enrolled. Data collection is estimated to be completed in June 2022, and analyses will be completed by June 2023. Conclusions This study will provide data that will help to determine whether a financial incentive–based mobile health intervention for promoting inhaled corticosteroid use can be effective in patients with high-risk asthma over longer periods. Trial Registration Clinicaltrial.gov NCT03907410; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03907410 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/16711

scholarly journals StudiCare mindfulness—study protocol of a randomized controlled trial evaluating an internet- and mobile-based intervention for college students with no and “on demand” guidance

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Marie Küchler ◽  
Dana Schultchen ◽  
Olga Pollatos ◽  
Morten Moshagen ◽  
David D. Ebert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
College Students ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cognitive Fusion ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background College is an exciting but also challenging time with an increased risk for mental health issues. Only a minority of the college students concerned get professional help, a problem that might be improvable by internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs). However, adherence of IMIs is a concern. While guidance might be a solution, it is resource-intensive, derailing potential implementation on population level. The first aim of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy of the IMI StudiCare Mindfulness (StudiCare-M) for college students with “on demand” and no guidance. The second aim is to examine potential moderators and mediators, contributing to the questions of “how” and “for whom” such interventions work. Methods In this three-armed randomized controlled trial, both an unguided and “guidance on demand” (GoD) condition of StudiCare-M are compared to a waitlist control group. StudiCare-M is based on principles of acceptance and commitment therapy and stress management and consists of 7 modules plus two booster sessions. Participants in the GoD condition may ask their e-coach for support whenever needed. A total of 387 college students with moderate to low mindfulness are recruited at 15+ cooperating universities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland via circular emails. Assessments take place before as well as 1, 2, and 6 months after randomization. The primary outcome is mindfulness. Secondary outcomes include stress, depression, anxiety, interoception, presenteeism, wellbeing, intervention satisfaction, adherence, and potential side effects. Among examined moderators and mediators are sociodemographic variables, pre-treatment symptomatology, treatment expectancy, self-efficacy, cognitive fusion, emotion regulation, and alexithymia. All data will be analyzed according to intention-to-treat (ITT) principles. Discussion Providing effective interventions to help college students become more resilient can make a valuable contribution to the health and functionality of future society. If effective under the condition of minimal or no guidance, StudiCare-M offers a low-threshold potentially resource-efficient possibility to enhance college student mental health on a population level. Moderation- and mediation analyses will deliver further insights for optimization of target groups and intervention content. Trial registration WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform via the German Clinical Studies Trial Register DRKS00014774. Registered on 18 May 2018.

scholarly journals Using Clinical Trial Data to Estimate the Costs of Behavioral Interventions for Potential Adopters: A Guide for Trialists

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20
Author(s):  
Louise B. Russell ◽  
Laurie A. Norton ◽  
David Pagnotti ◽  
Christianne Sevinc ◽  
Sophia Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Billing Data ◽  
Pragmatic Clinical Trials

Behavioral interventions involving electronic devices, financial incentives, gamification, and specially trained staff to encourage healthy behaviors are becoming increasingly prevalent and important in health innovation and improvement efforts. Although considerations of cost are key to their wider adoption, cost information is lacking because the resources required cannot be costed using standard administrative billing data. Pragmatic clinical trials that test behavioral interventions are potentially the best and often only source of cost information but rarely incorporate costing studies. This article provides a guide for researchers to help them collect and analyze, during the trial and with little additional effort, the information needed to inform potential adopters of the costs of adopting a behavioral intervention. A key challenge in using trial data is the separation of implementation costs, the costs an adopter would incur, from research costs. Based on experience with 3 randomized clinical trials of behavioral interventions, this article explains how to frame the costing problem, including how to think about costs associated with the control group, and describes methods for collecting data on individual costs: specifications for costing a technology platform that supports the specialized functions required, how to set up a time log to collect data on the time staff spend on implementation, and issues in getting data on device, overhead, and financial incentive costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document