BACKGROUND: Home wireless device monitoring could play an important role in improving the health of patients with poorly controlled chronic diseases, but daily engagement rates among these patients may be low. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of two different magnitudes of financial incentives for improving adherence to remote-monitoring regimens among patients with poorly controlled diabetes. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01282957). PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five patients with a hemoglobin A1c greater than or equal to 7.5% recruited from a Primary Care Medical Home practice at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. INTERVENTIONS: Twelve weeks of daily home-monitoring of blood glucose, blood pressure, and weight (control group; n = 28); a lottery incentive with expected daily value of $2.80 (n = 26) for daily monitoring; and a lottery incentive with expected daily value of $1.40 (n = 21) for daily monitoring. MAIN MEASURES: Daily use of three home-monitoring devices during the three-month intervention (primary outcome) and during the three-month follow-up period and change in A1c over the intervention period (secondary outcomes). KEY RESULTS: Incentive arm participants used devices on a higher proportion of days relative to control (81% low incentive vs. 58%, P = 0.007; 77% high incentive vs. 58%, P = 0.02) during the three-month intervention period. There was no difference in adherence between the two incentive arms (P = 0.58). When incentives were removed, adherence in the high incentive arm declined while remaining relatively high in the low incentive arm. In month 6, the low incentive arm had an adherence rate of 62% compared to 35% in the high incentive arm (P = 0.015) and 27% in the control group (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A daily lottery incentive worth $1.40 per day improved monitoring rates relative to control and had significantly better efficacy once incentives were removed than a higher incentive.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Home wireless device monitoring could play an important role in improving the health of patients with poorly controlled chronic diseases, but daily engagement rates among these patients may be low. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of two different magnitudes of financial incentives for improving adherence to remote-monitoring regimens among patients with poorly controlled diabetes. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01282957). PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five patients with a hemoglobin A1c greater than or equal to 7.5% recruited from a Primary Care Medical Home practice at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. INTERVENTIONS: Twelve weeks of daily home-monitoring of blood glucose, blood pressure, and weight (control group; n = 28); a lottery incentive with expected daily value of $2.80 (n = 26) for daily monitoring; and a lottery incentive with expected daily value of $1.40 (n = 21) for daily monitoring. MAIN MEASURES: Daily use of three home-monitoring devices during the three-month intervention (primary outcome) and during the three-month follow-up period and change in A1c over the intervention period (secondary outcomes). KEY RESULTS: Incentive arm participants used devices on a higher proportion of days relative to control (81% low incentive vs. 58%, P = 0.007; 77% high incentive vs. 58%, P = 0.02) during the three-month intervention period. There was no difference in adherence between the two incentive arms (P = 0.58). When incentives were removed, adherence in the high incentive arm declined while remaining relatively high in the low incentive arm. In month 6, the low incentive arm had an adherence rate of 62% compared to 35% in the high incentive arm (P = 0.015) and 27% in the control group (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A daily lottery incentive worth $1.40 per day improved monitoring rates relative to control and had significantly better efficacy once incentives were removed than a higher incentive.
Authors: Jeffrey T Kullgren; Andrea B Troxel; George Loewenstein; David A Asch; Laurie A Norton; Lisa Wesby; Yuanyuan Tao; Jingsan Zhu; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lee R Goldberg; John D Piette; Mary Norine Walsh; Theodore A Frank; Brian E Jaski; Andrew L Smith; Raymond Rodriguez; Donna M Mancini; Laurie A Hopton; E John Orav; Evan Loh Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; Leslie K John; Andrea B Troxel; Laurie Norton; Jennifer Fassbender; George Loewenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shivan J Mehta; Kevin G Volpp; David A Asch; Lee R Goldberg; Louise B Russell; Laurie A Norton; Lauren G Iannotte; Andrea B Troxel Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-04
Authors: Samuel T Kuna; David Shuttleworth; Luqi Chi; Sharon Schutte-Rodin; Eliot Friedman; Hengyi Guo; Sandeep Dhand; Lin Yang; Jingsan Zhu; Scarlett L Bellamy; Kevin G Volpp; David A Asch Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Pamela A Shaw; William S Yancy; Lisa Wesby; Victoria Ulrich; Andrea B Troxel; David Huffman; Gary D Foster; Kevin Volpp Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Allison N Kurti; Danielle R Davis; Ryan Redner; Brantley P Jarvis; Ivori Zvorsky; Diana R Keith; Hypatia A Bolivar; Thomas J White; Peter Rippberger; Catherine Markesich; Gary Atwood; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Transl Issues Psychol Sci Date: 2016-06
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; Andrea B Troxel; Shivan J Mehta; Laurie Norton; Jingsan Zhu; Raymond Lim; Wenli Wang; Noora Marcus; Christian Terwiesch; Kristen Caldarella; Tova Levin; Mike Relish; Nathan Negin; Aaron Smith-McLallen; Richard Snyder; Claire M Spettell; Brian Drachman; Daniel Kolansky; David A Asch Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; David A Asch; Roy Rosin; Dylan S Small; Scarlett L Bellamy; Kimberly Eberbach; Karen J Walters; Nancy Haff; Samantha M Lee; Lisa Wesby; Karen Hoffer; David Shuttleworth; Devon H Taylor; Victoria Hilbert; Jingsan Zhu; Lin Yang; Xingmei Wang; Kevin G Volpp Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anita D Misra-Hebert; Bo Hu; Glen Taksler; Robert Zimmerman; Michael B Rothberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 5.128