Trial reportBMC public health2019
Efficacy of an incentive intervention on secondary prophylaxis for young people with rheumatic fever: a multiple baseline study.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preventive Interventions to Reduce the Burden of Rheumatic Heart Disease in Populations at Risk: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Scoping review of telehealth use by Indigenous populations from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- Modalities of group A streptococcal prevention and treatment and their economic justification.NPJ vaccines · 2023Article
- Ethnically Disparate Disease Progression and Outcomes among Acute Rheumatic Fever Patients in New Zealand, 1989-2015.Emerging infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Adherence to Benzathine Penicillin G Secondary Prophylaxis and Its Determinants in Patients with Rheumatic Heart Disease at a Cardiac Center of an Ethiopian Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute rheumatic fever in New Zealand persists and is a barometer of equity as its burden almost exclusively falls on Māori and Pacific Island populations. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether an incentive programme will result in increased secondary prophylaxis injections over a one-year period compared to a baseline period prior to the intervention.
methodsThe evaluation used a multiple baseline study to determine whether an incentive consisting of a mobile phone and monthly "top-up" (for data/calls) resulted in increased injections, increased texts/calls with nurses, reduced number of visits to get a successful injection, less medicine wasted, and increased nurse satisfaction. Participants were 77 young people (aged 14-21) on an acute rheumatic fever registry in Waikato region, New Zealand classified as either fully adherent (all injections received and no more than one late) or partially adherent based on injections at baseline.
resultsThere was a sharp increase in injections for intermittent patients post-intervention and then a slight decrease overtime, while fully adherent patients maintained their high rate of injections (p = .003). A similar pattern for nurse satisfaction emerged (p = .001). The number of calls/texts increased for all patients (p = .003). The number of visits went down for partially adherent patients and up for fully adherent patients (p = .012). The overall incremental cost-effectiveness was $989 per extra successful injection although costs increased sharply toward the end of the intervention.
conclusionsIncentivising secondary prophylaxis appears to have a strong impact for partially adherent patients, particularly during the early periods following the initiation of the intervention. Enhancing communication with patients who returned to care may result in more sustainable adherence.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001150235 , 12 July 2018.
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.