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.

BACKGROUND: Sub-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. OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: TRIAD 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. RESULTS: Our 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. CONCLUSION: This 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.

Instability in Preference for Place of Death Among Patients With Symptoms of Advanced Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: Patient preference for place of death is an important component of advance care planning (ACP). If patients' preference for place of death changes over time, this questions the value of their documented preference. We aimed to assess the extent and correlates of change in preference for place of death over time among patients with symptoms of advanced heart failure. DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of a formal ACP program vs usual care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 282 patients aged 21 years old and above with heart failure and New York Heart Association Classification III and IV symptoms in Singapore. Analytic sample included 200 patients interviewed at least twice. METHODS: We assessed factors associated with patients' preference for place of death (home/institution/no preference) and change in their preference for place of death from previous time point (change toward home death/toward an institutional death/toward no preference/no change). These included patient demographics, quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), and prognostic understanding. RESULTS: In our study, 66% of patients with heart failure changed their preference for place of death at least once during the study period with no consistent pattern of change. Correct prognostic understanding at the time of survey reduced the relative risk of change in preference for place of death to home (relative risk ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.32, 0.76), whereas a higher quality of life score was associated with a lower relative risk of patients changing their preferred place of death to an institution (relative risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97, 1.00) relative to no change in preference. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We provide evidence of instability in patients with heart failure preference for place of death, which suggests that ACP documents should be regularly re-evaluated.

Instability in End-of-Life Care Preference Among Heart Failure Patients: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve quality of end-of-life (EOL) care are increasingly focused on eliciting patients' EOL preference through advance care planning (ACP). However, if patients' EOL preference changes over time and their ACP documents are not updated, these documents may no longer be valid at the time EOL decisions are made. OBJECTIVES: To assess extent and correlates of changes in stated preference for aggressive EOL care over time. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of a formal ACP program versus usual care in Singapore. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-two patients with heart failure (HF) and New York Heart Association Classification III and IV symptoms were recruited and interviewed every 4 months for up to 2 years to assess their preference for EOL care. Analytic sample included 200 patients interviewed at least twice. RESULTS: Nearly two thirds (64%) of patients changed their preferred type of EOL care at least once. Proportion of patients changing their stated preference for type of EOL care increased with time and the change was not unidirectional. Patients who understood their prognosis correctly were less likely to change their preference from non-aggressive to aggressive EOL care (OR 0.66, p value 0.07) or to prefer aggressive EOL care (OR 0.53; p value 0.001). On the other hand, patient-surrogate discussion of care preference was associated with a higher likelihood of change in patient preference from aggressive to non-aggressive EOL care (OR 1.83; p value 0.03). CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence of instability in HF patients' stated EOL care preference. This undermines the value of an ACP document recorded months before EOL decisions are made unless a strategy exists for easily updating this preference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02299180.

Pilot Trial of a Combined Oncologist-Patient-Caregiver Communication Intervention in Singapore.

PURPOSE: High-quality end-of-life cancer care requires oncologists to communicate effectively and patients/caregivers to be participatory. However, most communication interventions target either but not both. We aimed to pilot a potentially disseminable combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention to improve oncologist empathic responses, discussions of prognosis and goals of care, and patient/caregiver participation. We assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. METHODS: Between June 2018 and January 2019, we conducted a pilot 2-arm cluster trial in Singapore, randomly assigning 10 oncologists in a 1:1 ratio to receive the combined intervention or usual care. Intervention arm oncologists received online communication skills training, and their patients received a brief prompt sheet before consultations. We audio recorded consultations with 60 patients with stage IV solid malignancy and analyzed 30 in the postintervention phase. The study was not powered for statistical significance. RESULTS: Participation rates for oncologists and patients were 100% and 63%, respectively. All oncologists completed the online training within an average of 4.5 weeks; 73% of the patients selected at least 1 question in the prompt sheet. Compared with the control arm, intervention arm oncologists had more empathic responses in total (relative risk [RR], 1.66) and for every patient/caregiver negative emotion (RR, 2.01). Their consultations were more likely to involve discussions of prognosis (RR, 3.00) and goals of care, and their patients were more likely to ask a prognosis-related question (RR, 2.00; P > .05 for all). CONCLUSION: The combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to improve communication within consultations.

Using Adherence-Contingent Rebates on Chronic Disease Treatment Costs to Promote Medication Adherence: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to medications is a global public health concern with substantial health and cost implications, especially for chronic conditions. In the USA, poor adherence is estimated to cause 125,000 deaths and cost $US100 billion annually. The most successful adherence-promoting strategies that have been identified so far have moderate effect, are relatively costly, and raise availability, feasibility, and/or scalability issues. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of SIGMA (Study on Incentives for Glaucoma Medication Adherence) was to measure the effectiveness on medication adherence of a novel incentive strategy based on behavioral economics that we refer to as adherence-contingent rebates. These rebates offered patients a near-term benefit while leveraging loss aversion and regret and increasing the salience of adherence. METHODS: SIGMA is a 6-month randomized, controlled, open-label, single-center superiority trial with two parallel arms. A total of 100 non-adherent glaucoma patients from the Singapore National Eye Centre were randomized into intervention (adherence-contingent rebates) and usual care (no rebates) arms in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in percentage of adherent days at Month 6. The trial registration number is NCT02271269 and a detailed study protocol has been published elsewhere. FINDINGS: We found that participants who were offered adherence-contingent rebates were adherent to all their medications on 73.1% of the days after 6 months, which is 12.2 percentage points (p = 0.027) higher than in those not receiving the rebates after controlling for baseline differences. This better behavioral outcome was achieved by rebates averaging 8.07 Singapore dollars ($US5.94 as of 2 November 2017) per month during the intervention period. CONCLUSION: This study shows that simultaneously leveraging several insights from behavioral economics can significantly improve medication adherence rates. The relatively low cost of the rebates and significant health and cost implications of medication non-adherence suggest that this strategy has the potential to cost-effectively improve health outcomes for many conditions.