IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i5d10.1007_s40271-020-00491-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process- and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives to Improve Self-Management and Glycemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Singapore: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel Bilger

    (Vienna University of Business and Economics)

  • Mitesh Shah

    (SingHealth Polyclinics)

  • Ngiap Chuan Tan

    (SingHealth Polyclinics)

  • Cynthia Y. L. Tan

    (SingHealth Polyclinics)

  • Filipinas G. Bundoc

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Joann Bairavi

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Eric A. Finkelstein

    (Duke-NUS Medical School
    Duke University)

Abstract

Background Sub-optimally controlled diabetes increases risks for adverse and costly complications. Self-management including glucose monitoring, medication adherence, and exercise are key for optimal glycemic control, yet, poor self-management remains common. Objective The main objective of the Trial to Incentivize Adherence for Diabetes (TRIAD) study was to determine the effectiveness of financial incentives in improving glycemic control among type 2 diabetes patients in Singapore, and to test whether process-based incentives tied to glucose monitoring, medication adherence, and physical activity are more effective than outcome-based incentives tied to achieving normal glucose readings. Methods TRIAD is a randomized, controlled, multi-center superiority trial. A total of 240 participants who had at least one recent glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) being 8.0% or more and on oral diabetes medication were recruited from two polyclinics. They were block-randomized (blocking factor: current vs. new glucometer users) into the usual care plus (UC +) arm, process-based incentive arm, and outcome-based incentive arm in a 2:3:3 ratio. The primary outcome was the mean change in HbA1c at month 6 and was linearly regressed on binary variables indicating the intervention arms, baseline HbA1c levels, a binary variable indicating titration change, and other baseline characteristics. Results Our findings show that the combined incentive arms trended toward better HbA1c than UC + , but the difference is estimated with great uncertainty (difference − 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.67 to 0.06). Lending credibility to this result, the proportion of participants who reduced their HbA1c is higher in the combined incentive arms relative to UC + (0.18; 95% CI 0.04, 0.31). We found a small improvement in process- relative to outcome-based incentives, but this was again estimated with great uncertainty (difference − 0.05; 95% CI − 0.42 to 0.31). Consistent with this improvement, process-based incentives were more effective at improving weekly medication adherent days (0.64; 95% CI − 0.04 to 1.32), weekly physically active days (1.37; 95% CI 0.60–2.13), and quality of life (0.04; 95% CI 0.0–0.07) than outcome-based incentives. Conclusion This study suggests that both incentive types may be part of a successful self-management strategy. Process-based incentives can improve adherence to intermediary outcomes, while outcome-based incentives focus on glycemic control and are simpler to administer.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel Bilger & Mitesh Shah & Ngiap Chuan Tan & Cynthia Y. L. Tan & Filipinas G. Bundoc & Joann Bairavi & Eric A. Finkelstein, 2021. "Process- and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives to Improve Self-Management and Glycemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Singapore: A Randomized Controlled Trial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 555-567, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00491-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00491-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00491-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00491-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Health Organisation (WHO), 2016. "Global Report on Diabetes," Working Papers id:10553, eSocialSciences.
    2. Keith Kranker, "undated". "The Efficacy of Using Financial Incentives to Change Unhealthy Behaviors Among a Rural Chronically Ill and Uninsured Population," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 5d285b0236084a3989e4345e0, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. Marcel Bilger & Tina T. Wong & Jia Yi Lee & Kaye L. Howard & Filipinas G. Bundoc & Ecosse L. Lamoureux & Eric A. Finkelstein, 2019. "Using Adherence-Contingent Rebates on Chronic Disease Treatment Costs to Promote Medication Adherence: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 841-855, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kohei Kaku & Koichi Kisanuki & Mari Shibata & Takashi Oohira, 2019. "Benefit-Risk Assessment of Alogliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1311-1327, November.
    2. Dalia Littman & Scott E. Sherman & Andrea B. Troxel & Elizabeth R. Stevens, 2022. "Behavioral Economics and Tobacco Control: Current Practices and Future Opportunities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Joan Gil & Antonio Sicras-Mainar & Eugenio Zucchelli, 2016. "The effects of non-adherence on health care utilisation: panel data evidence on uncontrolled diabetes," Working Papers 2016-06, FEDEA.
    4. Joan Gil & Paolo Li Donni & Eugenio Zucchelli, 2019. "Uncontrolled diabetes and health care utilisation: A bivariate latent Markov model approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1262-1276, November.
    5. Sophie Relph & Trusha Patel & Louisa Delaney & Soha Sobhy & Shakila Thangaratinam, 2021. "Adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with diabetes-related microvascular disease and risks of disease progression in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Silvia Nanjala Walekhwa Hertzberg & Øystein K. Jørstad & Beáta Éva Petrovski & Ragnheidur Bragadottir & Leif Arthur Steffensen & Morten Carstens Moe & Emily A. Burger & Goran Petrovski, 2022. "Transition from Laser to Intravitreal Injections for Diabetic Retinopathy: Hospital Utilization and Costs from an Extended Healthcare Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Cherry Chay Lee Tan & Karis Kin Fong Cheng & Siew Wai Hwang & Ning Zhang & Eleanor Holroyd & Wenru Wang, 2020. "Effect of a Diabetes Self-Efficacy Enhancing Program on Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 29(5), pages 293-303, June.
    8. Meeri Urite Tekanene & Masoud Mohammadnezhad & Sabiha Khan & Renita Maharaj, 2021. "Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) related to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) among Healthy Adults in Kiribati," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(5), pages 1-10, May.
    9. Jacqueline Roseleur & Gillian Harvey & Nigel Stocks & Jonathan Karnon, 2019. "Behavioral Economic Insights to Improve Medication Adherence in Adults with Chronic Conditions: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(6), pages 571-592, December.
    10. Joan Gil & Antoni Sicras-Mainar & Eugenio Zucchelli, 2018. "Uncontrolled diabetes and health care utilisation: panel data evidence from Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 785-795, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00491-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.