Trial reportPloS one2021
Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02722499 (Financial Incentives Augmented Telephone Education and Skills Trial in African Americans With Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Financial Incentives Augmented Telephone Education and Skills Trial in African Americans With Diabetes (FITEST)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Financial incentives in the management of diabetes: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Review
- Cost-Savings Associated with Multi-Disciplinary Team Approach for Reducing Macrovascular and Microvascular Complications in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Predictive Model.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDetermine the cost-effectiveness of three financial incentive structures in obtaining a 1% within group drop in HbA1c among adults with diabetes.
methods60 African Americans with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of three financial incentive structures and followed for 3-months. Group 1 (low frequency) received a single incentive for absolute HbA1c reduction, Group 2 (moderate frequency) received a two-part incentive for home testing of glucose and absolute HbA1c reduction and Group 3 (high frequency) received a multiple component incentive for home testing, attendance of weekly telephone education classes and absolute HbA1c reduction. The primary clinical outcome was HbA1c reduction within each arm at 3-months. Cost for each arm was calculated based on the cost of the intervention, cost of health care visits during the 3-month time frame, and cost of workdays missed from illness. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated based on achieving a 1% within group drop in HbA1c and were bootstrapped with 1,000 replications.
resultsThe ICER to decrease HbA1c by 1% was $1,100 for all three arms, however, bootstrapped standard errors differed with Group 1 having twice the variation around the ICER coefficient as Groups 2 and 3. ICERs were statistically significant for Groups 2 and 3 (p<0.001) indicating they are cost effective interventions.
conclusionsGiven ICERs of prior diabetes interventions range from $1,000-$4,000, a cost of $1,100 per 1% within group decrease in HbA1c is a promising intervention. Multi-component incentive structures seem to have the least variation in cost-effectiveness.
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.