Julie A Wagner1,2, Nancy M Petry2, Kate Weyman3, Eileen Tichy3, Eda Cengiz3, Kristyn Zajac2, William V Tamborlane3. 1. Behavioral Sciences & Community Health, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut. 2. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut. 3. Yale Children's Diabetes Program, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial evaluated a monetary-based reinforcement intervention for increasing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among youth with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS: After a 2-week baseline, 60 participants were randomized toenhanced usual care (EUC) or Reinforcers. The Reinforcers group earned monetary rewards for SMBG and associated behaviors such as uploading glucose meters. Reinforcers were withdrawn at 24 weeks. A follow-up evaluation occurred at 36 weeks. RESULTS: Participants in the reinforcers group increased the proportion of days they completed ≥4 SMBG from 14.6% at baseline to 64.4%, 47.5%, and 37.8% at 6, 12, and 24 weeks, respectively. In contrast, EUC participants declined from 22.7% at baseline to 17.5%, 10.5%, and 11.1% (Ps < .01 vs EUC at all time points). Group differences were attenuated but remained significant after withdrawal of reinforcers. Effect sizes for SMBG were very large during reinforcement and large after withdrawal of reinforcers. In the reinforcers group, mean A1c dropped from 9.5% ± 1.2% at baseline to 9.0% ± 1.3% at week 6 and 9.0% ± 1.4% at week 12. For EUC, A1c was 9.2% ± 0.2% at baseline and ranged from 9.2% ± 1.5% to 9.6% ± 1.6% throughout the study (P < .05 vs EUC). Group differences in A1c were no longer significant at weeks 24 and 36. Effect sizes for A1c were small during reinforcement and also after withdrawal of reinforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Monetary-based reinforcement of adolescents with type 1 diabetes caused durable increases in SMBG. Modification of the reinforcement structure may be needed to sustain improved metabolic control in this challenging age group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial evaluated a monetary-based reinforcement intervention for increasing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among youth with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS: After a 2-week baseline, 60 participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC) or Reinforcers. The Reinforcers group earned monetary rewards for SMBG and associated behaviors such as uploading glucose meters. Reinforcers were withdrawn at 24 weeks. A follow-up evaluation occurred at 36 weeks. RESULTS:Participants in the reinforcers group increased the proportion of days they completed ≥4 SMBG from 14.6% at baseline to 64.4%, 47.5%, and 37.8% at 6, 12, and 24 weeks, respectively. In contrast, EUC participants declined from 22.7% at baseline to 17.5%, 10.5%, and 11.1% (Ps < .01 vs EUC at all time points). Group differences were attenuated but remained significant after withdrawal of reinforcers. Effect sizes for SMBG were very large during reinforcement and large after withdrawal of reinforcers. In the reinforcers group, mean A1c dropped from 9.5% ± 1.2% at baseline to 9.0% ± 1.3% at week 6 and 9.0% ± 1.4% at week 12. For EUC, A1c was 9.2% ± 0.2% at baseline and ranged from 9.2% ± 1.5% to 9.6% ± 1.6% throughout the study (P < .05 vs EUC). Group differences in A1c were no longer significant at weeks 24 and 36. Effect sizes for A1c were small during reinforcement and also after withdrawal of reinforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Monetary-based reinforcement of adolescents with type 1 diabetes caused durable increases in SMBG. Modification of the reinforcement structure may be needed to sustain improved metabolic control in this challenging age group.
Authors: Marc I Rosen; Kevin Dieckhaus; Thomas J McMahon; Barbara Valdes; Nancy M Petry; Joyce Cramer; Bruce Rounsaville Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Steven M Willi; Kellee M Miller; Linda A DiMeglio; Georgeanna J Klingensmith; Jill H Simmons; William V Tamborlane; Kristen J Nadeau; Julie M Kittelsrud; Peter Huckfeldt; Roy W Beck; Terri H Lipman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Elaine C Moreland; Lisa K Volkening; Margaret T Lawlor; Karen A Chalmers; Barbara J Anderson; Lori M B Laffel Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-27
Authors: Dayna E McGill; Lori M Laffel; Lisa K Volkening; Deborah A Butler; Wendy L Levy; Rachel M Wasserman; Barbara J Anderson Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: J J Wong; A Addala; D Naranjo; K K Hood; E Cengiz; M K Ginley; R S Feinn; J A Wagner Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Chén C Kenyon; Carina Flaherty; G Chandler Floyd; Brian P Jenssen; Victoria A Miller Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2021-08-15 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Laura M Nally; Julie Wagner; Jennifer Sherr; Eileen Tichy; Kate Weyman; Meredith K Ginley; Kristyn Zajac; Marcia Desousa; Veronika Shabanova; Nancy M Petry; William V Tamborlane; Michelle Van Name Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Faisal S Malik; Kirsten D Senturia; Cara D Lind; Kristen D Chalmers; Joyce P Yi-Frazier; Seema K Shah; Catherine Pihoker; Davene R Wright Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 3.409