Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26993471›Full record

Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2016

Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS): study protocol of a three-arm randomized controlled trial using financial incentives to increase screening uptake in London.

Gaby Judah, Ivo Vlaev, Laura Gunn, Dominic King, Derek King, Jonathan Valabhji, Ara Darzi, Colin Bicknell

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Improving Ocular Telehealth Outcomes.JAMA ophthalmology · 2016
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Gaby JudahDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK. G.Judah@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3322-9760
Ivo VlaevWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Scarman Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, Coventry, UK.
Laura GunnDepartment of Integrative Health Science, Stetson University, 421 North Woodland Blvd., DeLand, Florida, 32723, USA.
Dominic KingDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Derek KingPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics & Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Jonathan ValabhjiImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Colin BicknellDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK.
St Mary's Hospital · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBStetson University · USUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/64/112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes is an increasing public health problem in the UK and globally. Diabetic retinopathy is a microvascular complication of diabetes, and is one of the leading causes of blindness in the UK working age population. The diabetic eye screening programme in England aims to invite all people with diabetes aged 12 or over for retinal photography to screen for the presence of diabetic retinopathy. However, attendance rates are only 81 %, leaving many people at risk of preventable sight loss.

methodsThis is a three arm randomized controlled trial to investigate the impact of different types of financial incentives (based on principles from behavioral economics) on increasing attendance at diabetic eye screening appointments in London. Eligible participants will be aged 16 or over, and are those who have been invited to screening appointments annually, but who have not attended, or telephoned to rearrange an appointment, within the last 24 months. Eligible participants will be randomized to one of three conditions: 1. Control condition (usual invitation letter) 2. Fixed incentive condition (usual invitation letter, including a voucher for £10 if they attend their appointment) 3. Probabilistic incentive condition (invitation letter, including a voucher for a 1 in 100 chance of winning £1000 if they attend their appointment). Participants will be sent invitation letters, and the primary outcome will be whether or not they attend their appointment. One thousand participants will be included in total, randomized with a ratio of 1.4:1:1. In order to test whether the incentive scheme has a differential impact on patients from different demographic or socio-economic groups, information will be recorded on age, gender, distance from screening center, socio-economic status and length of time since they were last screened. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first trial of financial incentives for improving uptake of diabetic eye screening. If effective, the intervention may suggest a cost-effective way to increase screening rates, thus reducing unnecessary blindness.

trial registrationISRCTN14896403, 25 February 2016.

Indexed as

MotivationReimbursement, IncentiveRewardAdolescentAdultAgedChildDiabetic RetinopathyEconomics, BehavioralHumansLondonMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient ParticipationPhotographyPrimary Health CareBehavioral economicsBehavior changeDiabetesDiabetic retinopathyFinancial incentivesScreening

Identifiers

PMID26993471
PMCPMC4797200
OpenAlexW2299604285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.