Trial reportThe British journal of ophthalmology2018
Financial disincentives? A three-armed randomised controlled trial of the effect of financial Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) trial.
Trial report in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review: Systematic review and meta-analysis - financial incentives increase engagement with parenting programs for disruptive behavior problems.Child and adolescent mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- High Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in an Outpatient Podiatry Clinic and Associated Barriers to Ophthalmic Care.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Financial incentives for family members of hospitalized neonates for improving family presence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Time and risk preferences and the perceived effectiveness of incentives to comply with diabetic retinopathy screening among older adults with type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Rates of Eye Care and Diabetic Eye Disease among Insured Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2021Article
- A Review of Advancements and Evidence Gaps in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Models.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
- Changing health behaviors using financial incentives: a review from behavioral economics.BMC public health · 2019Review
- Moving the Needle: Association Between a Vaccination Reward Lottery and COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Louisiana.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveConflicting evidence exists regarding the impact of financial incentives on encouraging attendance at medical screening appointments. The primary aim was to determine whether financial incentives increase attendance at diabetic eye screening in persistent non-attenders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-armed randomised controlled trial was conducted in London in 2015. 1051 participants aged over 16 years, who had not attended eye screening appointments for 2 years or more, were randomised (1.4:1:1 randomisation ratio) to receive the usual invitation letter (control), an offer of £10 cash for attending screening (fixed incentive) or a 1 in 100 chance of winning £1000 (lottery incentive) if they attend. The primary outcome was the proportion of invitees attending screening, and a comparative analysis was performed to assess group differences. Pairwise comparisons of attendance rates were performed, using a conservative Bonferroni correction for independent comparisons.
results34/435 (7.8%) of control, 17/312 (5.5%) of fixed incentive and 10/304 (3.3%) of lottery incentive groups attended. Participants who received any incentive were significantly less likely to attend their appointment compared with controls (risk ratio (RR)=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92). Those in the probabilistic incentive group (RR=0.42; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.98), but not the fixed incentive group (RR=1.66; 95% CI 0.65 to 4.21), were significantly less likely to attend than those in the control group.
conclusionFinancial incentives, particularly lottery-based incentives, attract fewer patients to diabetic eye screening than standard invites in this population. Financial incentives should not be used to promote screening unless tested in context, as they may negatively affect attendance rates.
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.