Trial reportBMC family practice2012
Improving attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment in Australian general practice: an RCT of a monetary incentive for patients.
Trial report in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are interventions to increase the uptake of screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC family practice · 2017Pooled it
- Financial incentives for a healthy life style and disease prevention among older people: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
- The Heart Health Study - increasing cardiovascular risk assessment in family practice for first degree relatives of patients with premature ischaemic heart disease: a randomised controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2015Trial
- Trial
- Real-world feasibility, accuracy and acceptability of automated retinal photography and AI-based cardiovascular disease risk assessment in Australian primary care settings: a pragmatic trial.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Participant perception, still a major challenge to clinical research in developing countries-A mixed methods study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: A narrative review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreventive health care is an important part of general practice however uptake of activities by patients is variable. Monetary incentives for doctors have been used in the UK and Australia to improve rates of screening and immunisation. Few studies have focussed on incentives for patients to attend preventive health care examinations. Our objective was to investigate the use of a monetary incentive to increase patient attendance with their general practitioner for a cardiovascular risk assessment (CVRA).
methodsA pragmatic RCT was conducted in two Australian general practices. Participating GPs underwent academic detailing for cardiovascular risk assessment. 301 patients aged 40-74, who did not have cardiovascular disease, were independently randomised to receive a letter inviting them to a no cost cardiovascular risk assessment with their GP, or the same letter plus an offer of a $25 shopping voucher if they attended. An audit of patient medical records was also undertaken and a patient questionnaire administered to a sub sample of participants. Our main outcome measure was attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment.
resultsIn the RCT, 56/301(18.6%) patients attended for cardiovascular risk assessment, 29/182 (15.9%) in the control group and 27/119 (22.7%) in the intervention group. The estimated difference of 6.8% (95% CI: -2.5% to 16.0%) was not statistically significant, P = 0.15. The audit showed that GPs may underestimate patients' absolute cardiovascular risk and the questionnaire that mailed invitations from GPs for a CVRA may encourage patients to attend.
conclusionsA small monetary incentive does not improve attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment. Further research should be undertaken to determine if there are other incentives that may increase attendance for preventive activities in the general practice setting. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ACTRN12608000183381.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.