Trial reportJAMA network open2020

Effect of Patient Financial Incentives on Statin Adherence and Lipid Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Iwan Barankay, Peter P Reese, Mary E Putt, Louise B Russell, George Loewenstein, David Pagnotti, Jiali Yan, Jingsan Zhu, Ryan McGilloway, Troyen Brennan and 4 more

2 registry-linked trialsFull text readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map: it supports the treatment in 1. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

1number the graph read from it
1cell of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
-38.80 · no effect
Lipidsfavours the treatment · against placebo · ascvd, dyslipidemiafeeds one cell of the map
reductions -33.6-38.8 to -28.4
Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control).

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

Statins×lipids

SupportsOpen on the map →What to test next →

38 readable studies in this cell: 27 favour the treatment, 5 find no difference, 6 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.50contested · 21 families support, 7 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.50This paper does not move the number.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
This paper · 2020
reductions -33.6-38.8 to -28.4
NCT002899002,340 enrolled · 2006
Δ -13.2-16.8 to -9.60
reduced -66.0-73.0 to -58.0
NCT02546323543 enrolled · 2015
Δ -35.5-40.2 to -30.7
NCT01678820299 enrolled · 2012
Δ 0.50-4.80 to 5.80
NCT01218204287 enrolled · 2010
Δ 5.47-15.7 to 26.7
NCT0093525931 enrolled · 2009
Δ -51.7
4 · 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.

NCT01798784 nacompletednot on this map

Testing Behavioral Economic Interventions to Improve Statin Use and Reduce CVD Risk

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2013 to 2017Enrolled805ConditionsMedication AdherenceArmsSweepstake Incentive 1, Sweepstake Incentive 2, Sweepstake Incentive 3
NCT05928026 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Financial Support in an Underserved and Low-Income Population With Heart Failure

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterRan2023 to 2025Enrolled153ConditionsHeart Failure, Systolic, Financial Stress, Medication Adherence, Quality of LifeArmsFinancial Support
5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
6 · The record

Corrections and comments

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Iwan BarankayDepartment of Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Peter P ReeseCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mary E PuttCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Louise B RussellCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
George LoewensteinCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
David PagnottiCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Jiali YanCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Jingsan ZhuCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ryan McGillowayDepartment of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Troyen BrennanDepartment of Health Policy and Management, T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Darra FinnertyDepartment of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Karen HofferCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Sakshum ChadhaRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.
Kevin G VolppDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL118195
8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

Importance: Financial incentives can improve medication adherence and cardiovascular disease risk, but the optimal design to promote sustained adherence after incentives are discontinued is unknown. Objective: To determine whether 6-month interventions involving different financial incentives to encourage statin adherence reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline to 12 months. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 4-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 to July 2018 among several large US insurer or employer populations and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The study population included adults with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C control, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Data analysis was performed from July 2017 to June 2019. Interventions: The interventions lasted 6 months during which all participants received daily medication reminders and an electronic pill bottle. Statin adherence was measured by opening the bottle. For participants randomized to the 3 intervention groups, adherence was rewarded with financial incentives. The sweepstakes group involved incentives for daily adherence. In the deadline sweepstakes group, incentives were reduced if participants were adherent only after a reminder. The sweepstakes plus deposit contract group split incentives between daily adherence and a monthly deposit reduced for each day of nonadherence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months. Results: Among 805 participants randomized (199 in the simple daily sweepstakes group, 204 in the deadline sweepstakes group, 201 in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group, and 201 in the control group), the mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.3) years; 519 participants (64.5%) were women, 514 (63.9%) had diabetes, and 273 (33.9%) had cardiovascular disease. The mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 143.2 (42.5) mg/dL. Measured adherence at 6 months (defined as the proportion of 180 days with electronic pill bottle opening) in the control group (0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) was lower than that in the simple sweepstakes group (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), the deadline sweepstakes group (0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) (P < .001 for each incentive group vs control). LDL-C levels were measured for 636 participants at 12 months. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with the control group, different financial incentives improved measured statin adherence but not LDL-C levels. This result points to the importance of directly measuring health outcomes, rather than simply adherence, in trials aimed at improving health behaviors. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringRewardAdultAnticholesteremic AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterol, LDLFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedMotivationPatient ParticipationReimbursement, IncentiveTime FactorsAnticholesteremic AgentsCholesterol, LDLHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID33034639
PMCPMC7547367

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.