Small Social Incentives Did Not Improve the Survey Response Rate of Patients Who Underwent Orthopaedic Surgery: A Randomized Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Warwick H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6999991 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Small Social Incentives Did Not Improve the Survey Response Rate of Patients Who Underwent Orthopaedic Surgery: A Randomized Trial.
Warwick Hunter H Hutyra Carolyn C Politzer Cary C Francis Andrew A Risoli Thomas T Green Cynthia C Verma Nikhil N Huettel Scott S Mather Richard C RC
Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20190701 7
<h4>Background</h4>The generalizability of data derived from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) depends largely on the proportion of the relevant population that completes PROM surveys. However, PROM survey responses remain low, despite efforts to increase participation. Social incentives, such as the offer to make a charitable donation on behalf of the survey respondent, have generally not been effective where online surveys are concerned, but this has not been extensively tested in medi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionExperts continue to debate how to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Some experts advocate for financial incentives. Others argue that financial incentives, especially large ones, will have counterproductive psychological effects, reducing the percent of people who want to vaccinate. Among a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. sample of lower income adults, for whom vaccine uptake has lagged compared with higher income adults, we empirically examine such claims about relatively large and small guaranteed cash payments.MethodsIn 2021, we conducted a randomized, controlled experiment among U.S. residents with incomes below $80,000 who reported being unvaccinated against COVID-19. Study participants were randomized to one of four study arms. In two arms, respondents first learned about a policy proposal to pay $1,000 or $200 to those who received COVID-19 vaccination and were then asked if, given that policy, they would want to vaccinate. In the two other arms, respondents received either an educational message about this vaccine or received no vaccine information and were then asked if they wanted to vaccinate for COVID-19. The primary analyses estimated and compared the overall percentage in each study arm that reported wanting to vaccinate for COVID-19. In other analyses, we estimated and compared these percentages for subgroups of interest, including gender, race/ethnicity, and education.Main resultsAmong 2,290 unvaccinated adults, 79.7% (95%CI, 76.4-83.0%) of those who learned about the proposed $1,000 payment wanted to get vaccinated, compared with 58.9% (95%CI, 54.8-63.0%) in the control condition without vaccine information, a difference of 20 percentage points. Among those who learned of the proposed $200 payment, 74.8% (95% CI, 71.3-78.4%) wanted to vaccinate. Among those who learned only about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, 68.9% (95% CI, 65.1-72.7%) wanted to vaccinate. Findings were consistent across various subgroups.DiscussionDespite several study limitations, the results do not support concerns that the financial incentive policies aimed to increase COVID-19 vaccination would have counterproductive effects. Instead, those who learned about a policy with a large or small financial incentive were more likely than those in the control condition to report that they would want to vaccinate. The positive effects extended to subgroups that have been less likely to vaccinate, including younger adults, those with less education, and racial and ethnic minorities. Financial incentives of $1,000 performed similarly to those offering only $200.
| S-EPMC10022800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Poor adherence to medications is a major cause of morbidity and inadequate drug effectiveness. Efforts to improve adherence have typically been either ineffective or too complex to implement in clinical practice. Lottery-based incentive interventions could be a scalable approach to improving adherence.This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial of a daily lottery-based incentive in patients on warfarin stratified by baseline international normalized ratio (INR). The trial randomized 100 patients to either a lottery-based incentive or no lottery intervention. Main outcome was out-of-range INRs.Over 6 months, the overall percentage of out-of-range INRs did not differ between the 2 arms (mean 23.0% in lottery arm and 25.9% in control arm, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.62-1.41). However, among the a priori subgroup with a baseline INR below therapeutic range, there was a significant reduction in out-of-range INR in the lottery arm versus the control arm (adjusted OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62), whereas there was no such effect among those with therapeutic INRs at baseline (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI, 0.76-2.09, P value for interaction = .0016). Among those with low INR at baseline, there was a nonsignificant 49% reduction in the odds of nonadherence with the intervention (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.14).Although a lottery-based intervention was not associated with a significant improvement in anticoagulation control among all study participants, it improved control among an a priori group of patients at higher risk for poor adherence.
| S-EPMC4738867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious research has suggested that daily lottery incentives could improve medication adherence. Such daily incentives include implicit reminders. However, the comparative effectiveness of reminders alone versus daily incentives has not been tested.MethodsA total of 270 patients on warfarin were enrolled in a four-arm, multi-center, randomized controlled trial comparing a daily lottery-based incentive, a daily reminder, and a combination of the two against a control group (usual care).ResultsParticipants in the reminder group had the lowest percentage of time out of target international normalized ratio (INR) range, the primary outcome, with an adjusted odds of an out-of-range INR 36% lower than among those in the control group, 95%CI [7%, 55%]. No other group had a statistically significant improvement in anticoagulation control relative to the control group or to each other. The only group that had significant improvement in incorrect adherence was the lottery group (incorrect adherence: 12.1% compared with 23.7% in the control group, difference of -7.4% 95%CI [-14%, -0.3%]). However, there was no relationship between changes in adherence and anticoagulation control in the lottery group.ConclusionsAutomated reminders led to the largest improvements in anticoagulation control, although without impacting measured adherence. Lottery-based reminders improved measured adherence but did not lead to improved anticoagulation control. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
| S-EPMC5093038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreased mobile phone penetration allows the interviewing of respondents using interactive voice response surveys in low- and middle-income countries. However, there has been little investigation of the best type of incentive to obtain data from a representative sample in these countries.ObjectiveWe assessed the effect of different airtime incentives options on cooperation and response rates of an interactive voice response survey in Bangladesh and Uganda.MethodsThe open-label randomized controlled trial had three arms: (1) no incentive (control), (2) promised airtime incentive of 50 Bangladeshi Taka (US $0.60; 1 BDT is approximately equivalent to US $0.012) or 5000 Ugandan Shilling (US $1.35; 1 UGX is approximately equivalent to US $0.00028), and (3) lottery incentive (500 BDT and 100,000 UGX), in which the odds of winning were 1:20. Fully automated random-digit dialing was used to sample eligible participants aged ≥18 years. The risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals for primary outcomes of response and cooperation rates were obtained using log-binomial regression.ResultsBetween June 14 and July 14, 2017, a total of 546,746 phone calls were made in Bangladesh, with 1165 complete interviews being conducted. Between March 26 and April 22, 2017, a total of 178,572 phone calls were made in Uganda, with 1248 complete interviews being conducted. Cooperation rates were significantly higher for the promised incentive (Bangladesh: 39.3%; RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.24-1.55, P<.001; Uganda: 59.9%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.33-1.62, P<.001) and the lottery incentive arms (Bangladesh: 36.6%; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.15-1.45, P<.001; Uganda: 54.6%; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48, P<.001) than those for the control arm (Bangladesh: 28.4%; Uganda: 40.9%). Similarly, response rates were significantly higher for the promised incentive (Bangladesh: 26.5%%; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.14-1.39, P<.001; Uganda: 41.2%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.39, P<.001) and lottery incentive arms (Bangladesh: 24.5%%; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.29, P=.002; Uganda: 37.9%%; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.29, P=.001) than those for the control arm (Bangladesh: 21.0%; Uganda: 32.4%).ConclusionsPromised or lottery airtime incentives improved survey participation and facilitated a large sample within a short period in 2 countries.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03773146; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03773146.
| S-EPMC9127645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is well known that the implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist (SSC) leads to improved operating room team coordination and reduced perioperative complication and mortality rates. Although it is proven to be beneficial worldwide, its awareness and usage need to be evaluated in a diverse country like India. As orthopaedic surgeries involve implants and tourniquet usage, it is important to evaluate the applicability of WHO SSC specifically to orthopaedic surgeries, and whether any modifications are needed.Materials and methodsA web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted among Indian Orthopaedic Surgeons with a pre-defined questionnaire regarding awareness, usage and suggestions to modify the existing WHO SSC (2009) for orthopaedic surgeries.Results513 responses were included for final analysis. 90.3% of surgeons were aware of the surgical safety checklist; however, only 55.8% used it routinely in their practice. The awareness of SSC availability was 1.85 times more among younger surgeons (< 20 years of experience) than among those with > 20 years of experience. 17% of surgeons thought the usage of SSC was time-consuming and 52.4% of participants felt a need to modify the existing WHO SSC (2009) for orthopaedic surgeries. 34.5% recommended the inclusion of the patient blood group in the "Sign-in" section, 62.77% proposed the inclusion of details about the tourniquet, whereas only 6.63% suggested adding about surgical implant readiness in the "Time-out" section and 72.7% suggested including a check to make sure the tourniquet was deflated, removed and also recording of the total usage time during the "Sign-out" section.ConclusionDespite high (90%) awareness among Indian Orthopaedic surgeons, they have limited usage of the WHO SSC in their practice. Identifying barriers and considering modifications for orthopaedic surgeries, like details about tourniquet usage during the "Time-out" section and a check to ensure it was removed during the "Sign-out" section, will improve patient safety and outcomes.Graphical abstractSupplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-024-01096-5.
| S-EPMC10899545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe primary objective of this systematic review is to examine the characteristics of pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the orthopaedic surgery literature, including the proportion framed as feasibility trials and those that lead to definitive RCTs. This review aim to answer the question of whether pilot RCTs lead to definitive RCTs, whilst investigating the quality, feasibility and overall publication trends of orthopaedic pilot trials.MethodsPilot RCTs in the orthopaedic literature were identified from three electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Pubmed) searched from database inception to January 2018. Search criteria included the evaluation of at least one orthopaedic surgical intervention, research on humans, and publication in English. Two reviewers independently screened the pool of pilot trials, and conducted a search for corresponding definitive trials. Screened pilot RCTs were assessed for feasibility outcomes related to efficiency, cost, and/or timeliness of a large-scale clinical trial involving a surgical intervention. The quality of the pilot and definitive trials were assessed using the Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Non-Pharmacological Trial (CLEAR NPT).ResultsThe initial search for pilot RCTs yielded 3857 titles, of which 49 articles were relevant for this review. 73.5% (36/49) of the orthopaedic pilot RCTs were framed as feasibility trials. Of these, 5 corresponding definitive trials (10.2%) were found, of which four were published and one ongoing. Based on author responses, the lack of a definitive RCT following the pilot trial was attributed to a lack of funding, inadequacies in recruitment, and belief that the pilot RCT sufficiently answered the research question.ConclusionsBased on this systematic review, most pilot RCTs were characterized as feasibility trials. However, the majority of published pilot RCTs did not lead to definitive trials. This discrepancy was mainly attributed to poor feasibility (e.g. poor recruitment) and lack of funding for an orthopaedic surgical definitive trial. In recent years this discrepancy may be due to researchers saving on time and cost by rolling their pilot patients into the definitive RCT rather than publish a separate pilot trial.
| S-EPMC6260657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost conditions in orthopaedic surgery are preference-sensitive, where treatment choices are based on the patient's values and preferences. One set of tools increasingly used to help align treatment choices with patient preferences are question prompt lists (QPLs), which are comprehensive lists of potential questions that patients can ask their physicians during their encounters. Whether or not a comprehensive orthopaedic-specific question prompt list would increase patient-perceived involvement in care more effectively than might three generic questions (the AskShareKnow questions) remains unknown; learning the answer would be useful, since a three-question list is easier to use compared with the much lengthier QPLs.Question/purposeDoes an orthopaedic-specific question prompt list increase patient-perceived involvement in care compared with the three generic AskShareKnow questions?MethodsWe performed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of all new patients visiting a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic. A pragmatic design was used to mimic normal clinical care that compared two clinically acceptable interventions. New patients with common orthopaedic conditions were enrolled between August 2019 and November 2019 and were randomized to receive either the intervention QPL handout (orthopaedic-specific QPL with 45 total questions, developed with similar content and length to prior QPLs used in hand surgery, oncology, and palliative care) or a control handout (the AskShareKnow model questions, which are: "What are my options? What are the benefits and harms of those options? How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?") before their visits. A total of 156 patients were enrolled, with 78 in each group. There were no demographic differences between the study and control groups in terms of key variables. After the visit, patients completed the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS), a validated instrument designed to evaluate patient-perceived involvement in their care, which served as the primary outcome measure. This instrument is scored from 0 to 13, with higher scores indicating higher perceived involvement.ResultsThere was no difference in mean PICS scores between the intervention and control groups (QPL 8.3 ± 2.3, control 8.5 ± 2.3, mean difference 0.2 [95% CI -0.53 to 0.93 ]; p = 0.71.ConclusionIn patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, a QPL does not increase patient-perceived involvement in care compared with providing patients the three AskShareKnow questions. Implementation of the three AskShareKnow questions can be a more efficient way to improve patient-perceived involvement in their care compared with a lengthy QPL.Level of evidenceLevel II, therapeutic study.
| S-EPMC7899535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrior studies have assessed provider knowledge and factors associated with opioid misuse; similar studies evaluating patient knowledge are lacking. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of understanding regarding opioid use in orthopaedic trauma patients. We also sought to determine the demographic factors and clinical and personal experiences associated with level of understanding.MethodsOne hundred and sixty-six adult orthopaedic trauma surgery patients across two clinical sites of an academic institution participated in an internet-based survey (2352 invited, 7.1% response rate). Demographic, clinical, and personal experience variables, as well as perceptions surrounding opioid use were collected. Relationships between patient characteristics and opioid perceptions were identified using univariate and multivariable logistic regressions. Alpha = 0.05.ResultsExcellent recognition (> 85% correct) of common opioids, side effects, withdrawal symptoms, and disposal methods was demonstrated by 29%, 10%, 30%, and 2.4% of patients; poor recognition (< 55%) by 11%, 56%, 33%, and 52% of patients, respectively. Compared with white patients, non-white patients had 7.8 times greater odds (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-31) of perceiving addiction discrepancy (p = 0.004). Employed patients with higher education levels were less likely to have excellent understanding of side effects (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.06, 95% CI 0.006-0.56; p = 0.01) and to understand that dependence can occur within 2 weeks (aOR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.86; p = 0.03) than unemployed patients. Patients in the second least disadvantaged ADI quartile were more knowledgeable about side effects (aOR 8.8, 95% CI 1.7-46) and withdrawal symptoms (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.0-7.2; p = 0.046) than those in the least disadvantaged quartile. Patients who knew someone who was dependent or overdosed on opioids were less likely to perceive addiction discrepancy (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.76; p = 0.02) as well as more likely to have excellent knowledge of withdrawal symptoms (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-6.5, p = 0.03) and to understand that dependence can develop within 2 weeks (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 1.5-9.8, p = 0.005).ConclusionsLevel of understanding regarding opioid use is low among orthopaedic trauma surgery patients. Clinical and personal experiences with opioids, in addition to demographics, should be emphasized in the clinical history.
| S-EPMC8709537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Lifestyle modifications including increasing physical activity and losing weight have been demonstrated to improve glycemic control. However, most patients struggle to make these changes. Many stakeholders are interested in using gamification and social incentives to increase engagement in healthy behaviors. However, these approaches often do not appropriately leverage insights from behavioral economics that could be used to address predictable barriers to behavior change.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the protocol for the Influencing DIabetics to Adapt Behaviors related to Exercise and weighT by Enhancing Social incentives (iDiabetes) trial, which aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of gamification interventions that leverage insights from behavioral economics to enhance supportive, competitive, or collaborative social incentives to improve glycemic control, promote weight loss, and increase physical activity among overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe are conducting a one-year four-arm randomized controlled trial of 361 overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level ≥8.0. Wireless weight scales and wearable devices are provided to remotely monitor weight and physical activity and transmit data to the study team. Patients are recruited by email, following which they establish a baseline measure of weight, daily step count, HbA1c level, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and then repeat these measures at 6 and 12 months. The control arm receives no other interventions. Patients randomized to one of the three intervention arms are entered into a game designed using insights from behavioral economics to enhance supportive, competitive, or collaborative social incentives. To examine predictors of strong or poor performance, participants completed validated questionnaires on a range of areas including their personality, risk preferences, and social network.ResultsEnrollment of 361 patients was completed in January 2019. Results are expected in 2020.ConclusionsThe iDiabetes trial represents a scalable model to remotely monitor the daily health behaviors of adults with type 2 diabetes. Results from this trial will help provide insights into how to improve management of patients with type 2 diabetes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02961192; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02961192.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/14180.
| S-EPMC6893558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A recently published meta-analysis comparing metallic staples to sutures in orthopaedic procedures revealed three fold increase in risk for infection in stapled wounds. The studies included in the meta-analysis are at risk of bias due to experimental design limitations. A large randomized controlled trial is proposed to direct orthopaedic surgeons in their choice of wound closure material. METHODS/DESIGN:A parallel group randomized controlled trial with institutional review board approval will be conducted. Patients will be randomized intraoperatively to have skin wounds closed with sutures or staples. Dressings will be used to maintain blinding outcome assessors. The primary outcome measure will be a composite all-cause wound complication outcome measure composed of: infection, wound drainage, wound necrosis, blistering, dehiscence, suture abscess and material sensitivity reaction. An independent review board blinded to treatment assignment will adjudicate suspected complications based on clinical data. All deceased patients will also be reviewed. An interim analysis of complications will take place after half of the patients have been recruited. All data will be analyzed by a blinded statistician. Dichotomous primary and secondary outcome measures will be analyzed using the Chi-squared statistic. Continuous outcome measures will be analyzed using Student's?t-test. Subgroup analysis will compare infection rates using sutures versus staples in each anatomic area (upper extremity, pelvis/acetabulum, hip/femur, knee, ankle). A further subgroup analysis will be conducted comparing trauma patients to elective surgery patients. Non-infected revision surgery will also be compared to primary surgery. DISCUSSION:Wound closure material is an afterthought for many orthopaedic surgeons. The combined results of several comparative trials suggests that the choice of wound closure materials may have an impact on the rate of surgical site infections. However, the strength of the evidence is poor given the heterogeneity of the methods employed in previous studies. The following study protocol aims to guide surgeons in their choice of wound closure material by determining if there is a difference in complication rates in sutured and stapled wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01146236 (registered June 14, 2010).
| S-EPMC3495200 | biostudies-literature