- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02339909
Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS)
Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) Trial
This trial is a randomised controlled trial to assess whether annual attendance rates at diabetic eye screening appointments in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster could be improved by offering invitees a small financial incentive. The research questions are:
- Are incentives an effective strategy to encourage participation in the screening programme?
- Does the design of the financial incentive scheme affect its effectiveness in influencing participation in health screening?
- Does the choice of incentive scheme, if successful, attract patients who have a different demographic or socioeconomic status to those who attend screening regularly?
- Is offering these incentives a cost-effective strategy for enhancing participation?
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
An increasing emphasis is being placed on preventative healthcare in the NHS (National Health Service). Screening programmes currently exist in many clinical areas including diabetic retinopathy as well as breast cancer, cervical cancer and cardiovascular disease. In many contexts the benefits of health screening are well documented, but concerns exist about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such programmes as uptake to screening may be very poor in some, generally hard to reach, communities. There are many ways of trying to encourage participation in health promoting activities and it is likely real shifts in behaviour will only come about with a mix of strategies. In this study we set out to see if we can improve screening rates in London, which has both high and low levels of deprivation and specific populations with poor attendance. The ultimate success of a high-quality screening program depends on the uptake rate of the population and novel solutions are required to meet the challenge of achieving this.
Diabetes is an increasing public health concern worldwide. There are 2.9 million people diagnosed with diabetes in the UK (United Kingdom) and an estimated 850,000 people who have the condition but are not recognised. Whilst the rates of other vascular risk factors such as hypertension, smoking and hypercholesterolaemia are falling, the rates of diabetes in the UK are rising. This is despite the co-ordinated efforts of primary and secondary care prevention programmes.
All patients with diabetes are at risk of developing diabetic retinopathy. This condition is caused by the microscopic damage to small blood vessels to the eye. There is proliferation (growth) of these vessels and these new fragile vessels may bleed and destroy the retina leading to sight loss. It is estimated that in England every year 4,200 people are at risk of blindness caused by diabetic retinopathy and there are 1,280 new cases of blindness caused by diabetic retinopathy. It is the leading cause of sight loss in the UK in the working population and therefore there is a significant social and financial burden associated with the condition. However with timely diagnosis and treatment the risk of blindness can be dramatically reduced. As this condition may well remain silent until catastrophic late manifestations of the disease are evident, the need for an effective screening programme is obvious.
The National Screening programme was implemented in England between 2003 and 2006. This involves an annual retinal digital photographic screening offered to all people aged 12 years and older diagnosed with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The test involves administration of eye drops to the eye and a photograph of the retina taken without contact with the eye. The success of this screening programme is without contest. In 2011-2012, 2,587,000 people in England aged 12 and over were identified with diabetes and over 90% were offered screening for diabetic retinopathy. 1,911,000 received screening which equates to an uptake of 81%. However there is significant variability in uptake in differing areas.
Although screening is offered in multiple locations including GP (general practice) surgeries and hospitals, the poor uptake of screening in socially deprived areas is well documented. For example, in Gloucestershire, with each increasing quintile of deprivation, diabetes prevalence increases (odds ratio 0.84), the probability of having been screened for diabetic retinopathy decreases (odds ratio 1.11), and the prevalence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy among screened patients increases also (odds ratio of 0.98).
Since the effectiveness of any screening programme is intimately linked to the uptake by the population (and in particular uptake by those most at risk), simple, inexpensive and cost effective strategies are required by the NHS to influence population health behaviours in domains where choices are often in sharp contrast to underlying intentions. This has relevance to diabetic retinopathy screening but also more widely as we increasingly try to prevent disease rather than simply treat it.
Incentives are central to economics and are used across the public and private sectors to influence behaviour. Psychological phenomena from behavioural economics allow us to design incentive-based interventions that are more effective at delivering improved outcomes. Personal incentives have been used to motivate patients and general populations to change their behaviour. Examples of behaviours targeted include smoking and drug use cessation. Incentives can include cash, vouchers or benefits-in-kind and they can have a profound effect on individual behaviour at a relatively small cost. Interest in offering incentives to foster healthier lifestyles has increased, as the full economic and social costs of bad choices and unhealthy behaviour have become apparent. Incentives have previously been used to improve cancer screening rates, but they have been targeted at the providers of the service rather than people invited to attend for screening. Financial incentives have been seen to be more effective in increasing performance of infrequent behaviours (e.g. vaccinations) rather than in more sustained behaviours (e.g. smoking). As screening usually requires discrete one-off behaviours, incentives may be particularly effective in increasing their uptake.
A wider use of incentives in public health interventions is a more recent phenomenon and has attracted controversy and concerns about whether they are effective (and cost effective) or not. This study will provide evidence to policy makers about the role of different incentive schemes in encouraging health promoting behaviours. We do not suggest that providing incentives is the only answer to encouraging screening participation, but if we demonstrate good evidence that they are effective (and cost effective), their targeted application may be indicated. Equally demonstration that incentives of this type are not effective may prevent unnecessary financial loss from the NHS if wider rollout of such programmes is considered.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Diabetic patients who were invited to screening in the last 24 months on a yearly basis and failed to attend or contact the screening service to rearrange an appointment
Exclusion Criteria:
-
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Screening
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: Control
The intervention for the "Control" group consists of the standard invitation letter from the Screening service.
(The trial is testing the impact of the different invitation letters on the primary outcome of screening attendance.)
|
Participants receiving the "active comparator", (i.e.
"control") intervention, will be sent the standard diabetic retinopathy screening appointment letter.
|
Experimental: Fixed Incentive
The intervention for the "fixed incentive" group consists of the standard invitation letter from the Screening service, with additional text offering a fixed financial incentive (£10) if they attend screening.
(The trial is testing the impact of the different invitation letters on the primary outcome of screening attendance.)
|
Participants receiving the "fixed financial incentive" intervention will be sent a screening appointment letter offering them a fixed amount of £10 if they attend their screening appointment.
|
Experimental: Probabilistic Incentive
The intervention for the "probabilistic incentive" group consists of the standard invitation letter from the Screening service, with additional text offering a probabilistic financial incentive (entry into a lottery offering at least a 1 in 100 chance to win £1000) if they attend screening.
(The trial is testing the impact of the different invitation letters on the primary outcome of screening attendance.)
|
Participants receiving the "probabilistic financial incentive" intervention will be sent a screening appointment letter offering them an entry into a lottery with at least a 1 in 100 chance of winning £1000 if they attend their screening appointment.
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Number of Patients Attending Screening Appointment
Time Frame: At designated appointment date (between three months and one year from previous missed appointment)
|
The participants will be invited to a specific appointment between three months and one year from their previous missed appointment.
The primary outcome refers to the number of participants who did attend their appointment.
|
At designated appointment date (between three months and one year from previous missed appointment)
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Number of Patients Requiring Intervention After Sight Outcome From Diabetic Retinopathy Screening.
Time Frame: Number of patients with additional management triggered as a result of test at designated screening appointment (between three months and one year)
|
The outcome measure from screening is an ordinal measure indicating whether there is no retinopathy, or varying degrees of retinopathy.
This will be measured at the screening appointment (for those participants who attend their appointment).
We report whether there is further management required as a result of screening.
|
Number of patients with additional management triggered as a result of test at designated screening appointment (between three months and one year)
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Colin Bicknell, Imperial College London
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Scanlon PH, Carter SC, Foy C, Husband RF, Abbas J, Bachmann MO. Diabetic retinopathy and socioeconomic deprivation in Gloucestershire. J Med Screen. 2008;15(3):118-21. doi: 10.1258/jms.2008.008013.
- Marteau TM, Ashcroft RE, Oliver A. Using financial incentives to achieve healthy behaviour. BMJ. 2009 Apr 9;338:b1415. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1415. No abstract available.
Helpful Links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimated)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- REC 14/LO/1779
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Diabetes
-
University of Colorado, DenverMassachusetts General Hospital; Beta Bionics, Inc.CompletedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1 | Type 1 Diabetes | Diabetes type1 | Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus | Autoimmune Diabetes | Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin-Dependent | Juvenile-Onset Diabetes | Diabetes, Autoimmune | Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus 1 | Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin-Dependent, 1 | Diabetes Mellitus, Brittle | Diabetes Mellitus, Juvenile-Onset and other conditionsUnited States
-
Guang NingRecruitingType 2 Diabetes Mellitus | Type1 Diabetes Mellitus | Monogenetic Diabetes | Pancreatogenic Diabetes | Drug-Induced Diabetes Mellitus | Other Forms of Diabetes MellitusChina
-
University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto DouroCompletedType 2 Diabetes Mellitus | Diabetes-Related ComplicationsPortugal
-
Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation TrustBrighter ABCompletedDiabetes type1 | Diabetes type2United Kingdom
-
VeraLight, Inc.InLight SolutionsUnknownGestational Diabetes | Insulin Dependent Diabetes | Non Insulin Dependent DiabetesUnited States
-
Garvan Institute of Medical ResearchWeizmann Institute of ScienceActive, not recruitingType 2 Diabetes Mellitus | Pre DiabetesAustralia
-
Oregon State UniversitySanofiCompletedType I or Type II Diabetes (Excludes Gestational Diabetes)
-
Taichung Veterans General HospitalNational Health Research Institutes, TaiwanRecruitingDiabetes Complications | Type 2 Diabetes | Maturity-Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY)Taiwan
-
University of RoehamptonRecruitingType2 Diabetes Mellitus | Pre DiabetesUnited Kingdom
-
Peking Union Medical College HospitalUnknownType 2 Diabetes Mellitus | Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus | Gestational Diabetes Mellitus | Pancreatogenic Diabetes Mellitus | Pregestational Diabetes Mellitus | Diabetes Patients in Perioperative PeriodChina
Clinical Trials on Control
-
Claudia M. WittCompleted
-
University of California, San FranciscoWithdrawn
-
The George InstituteChanghai Hospital; University of CalgaryNot yet recruiting
-
Universidad Nacional de Educación a DistanciaMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad, SpainUnknownChronic Pain | FibromyalgiaSpain
-
University of California, Los AngelesThe National Council on Aging; City of Los Angeles Department of Aging; Los Angeles...Completed
-
Queen's University, BelfastPublic Health Agency, Health and Social Care Research and Development; Tiny...Completed
-
National Taiwan University HospitalEnrolling by invitationCognitive Function | Atrial Fibrillation, PersistentTaiwan
-
Takeshi MorimotoUniversity of the RyukyusActive, not recruitingCoronary Artery Disease | Hypertension | Type 2 Diabetes | DyslipidemiaJapan
-
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.TerminatedRefractive Error CorrectionUnited States
-
Vanderbilt University Medical CenterCompleted