Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33491116›Full record

Trial reportThe patient2021

Process- and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives to Improve Self-Management and Glycemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Singapore: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Marcel Bilger, Mitesh Shah, Ngiap Chuan Tan, Cynthia Y L Tan, Filipinas G Bundoc, Joann Bairavi, Eric A Finkelstein

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The patient, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Financial incentives in the management of diabetes: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Marcel BilgerHealth Economics and Policy, Vienna University of Business and Economics, Vienna, Austria. marcel.bilger@wu.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-2872-6597
Mitesh ShahSingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore, Singapore.
Ngiap Chuan TanSingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore, Singapore.
Cynthia Y L TanSingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore, Singapore.
Filipinas G BundocHealth Services and Systems Research Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Joann BairaviHealth Services and Systems Research Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Eric A FinkelsteinHealth Services and Systems Research Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
SingHealth Polyclinics · SGDuke-NUS Medical School · SGDuke University · USVienna University of Economics and Business · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSub-optimally controlled diabetes increases risks for adverse and costly complications. Self-management including glucose monitoring, medication adherence, and exercise are key for optimal glycemic control, yet, poor self-management remains common.

objectiveThe main objective of the Trial to Incentivize Adherence for Diabetes (TRIAD) study was to determine the effectiveness of financial incentives in improving glycemic control among type 2 diabetes patients in Singapore, and to test whether process-based incentives tied to glucose monitoring, medication adherence, and physical activity are more effective than outcome-based incentives tied to achieving normal glucose readings.

methodsTRIAD is a randomized, controlled, multi-center superiority trial. A total of 240 participants who had at least one recent glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) being 8.0% or more and on oral diabetes medication were recruited from two polyclinics. They were block-randomized (blocking factor: current vs. new glucometer users) into the usual care plus (UC +) arm, process-based incentive arm, and outcome-based incentive arm in a 2:3:3 ratio. The primary outcome was the mean change in HbA1c at month 6 and was linearly regressed on binary variables indicating the intervention arms, baseline HbA1c levels, a binary variable indicating titration change, and other baseline characteristics.

resultsOur findings show that the combined incentive arms trended toward better HbA1c than UC + , but the difference is estimated with great uncertainty (difference - 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.67 to 0.06). Lending credibility to this result, the proportion of participants who reduced their HbA1c is higher in the combined incentive arms relative to UC + (0.18; 95% CI 0.04, 0.31). We found a small improvement in process- relative to outcome-based incentives, but this was again estimated with great uncertainty (difference - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.42 to 0.31). Consistent with this improvement, process-based incentives were more effective at improving weekly medication adherent days (0.64; 95% CI - 0.04 to 1.32), weekly physically active days (1.37; 95% CI 0.60-2.13), and quality of life (0.04; 95% CI 0.0-0.07) than outcome-based incentives.

conclusionThis study suggests that both incentive types may be part of a successful self-management strategy. Process-based incentives can improve adherence to intermediary outcomes, while outcome-based incentives focus on glycemic control and are simpler to administer.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Self-ManagementBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringGlycemic ControlHumansMotivationQuality of LifeSingaporeBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID33491116
PMCPMC8357673
OpenAlexW3123975161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.