Use the links below to access our reports, or scroll down to use the search function to explore all of our publications including peer-reviewed papers and briefing papers.

Our reports

IGHI reports

Our community regularly publishes evidence-based policy reports covering pressing health issues and outlining key considerations to address them.

Access our reports

WISH reports

We’re a partner of the World Innovation Summit for Health, a global community dedicated to capturing and disseminating the best evidence-based ideas and practices in global healthcare.

Access the latest WISH reports

Browse all publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Judah:2018:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311778,
author = {Judah, G and Darzi, A and Vlaev, I and Gunn, L and King, D and King, D and Valabhji, J and Bicknell, C},
doi = {10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311778},
journal = {British Journal of Ophthalmology},
pages = {1014--1020},
title = {Financial disincentives? A three-armed randomised controlled trial of the effect of financial Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) trial},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311778},
volume = {102},
year = {2018}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - OBJECTIVE: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the impact of financial incentives on encouraging attendance at medical screening appointments. The primary aim was to determine whether financial incentives increase attendance at diabetic eye screening in persistent non-attenders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-armed randomised controlled trial was conducted in London in 2015. 1051 participants aged over 16 years, who had not attended eye screening appointments for 2 years or more, were randomised (1.4:1:1 randomisation ratio) to receive the usual invitation letter (control), an offer of £10 cash for attending screening (fixed incentive) or a 1 in 100 chance of winning £1000 (lottery incentive) if they attend. The primary outcome was the proportion of invitees attending screening, and a comparative analysis was performed to assess group differences. Pairwise comparisons of attendance rates were performed, using a conservative Bonferroni correction for independent comparisons. RESULTS: 34/435 (7.8%) of control, 17/312 (5.5%) of fixed incentive and 10/304 (3.3%) of lottery incentive groups attended. Participants who received any incentive were significantly less likely to attend their appointment compared with controls (risk ratio (RR)=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92). Those in the probabilistic incentive group (RR=0.42; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.98), but not the fixed incentive group (RR=1.66; 95% CI 0.65 to 4.21), were significantly less likely to attend than those in the control group. CONCLUSION: Financial incentives, particularly lottery-based incentives, attract fewer patients to diabetic eye screening than standard invites in this population. Financial incentives should not be used to promote screening unless tested in context, as they may negatively affect attendance rates.
AU  - Judah,G
AU  - Darzi,A
AU  - Vlaev,I
AU  - Gunn,L
AU  - King,D
AU  - King,D
AU  - Valabhji,J
AU  - Bicknell,C
DO  - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311778
EP  - 1020
PY  - 2018///
SN  - 0007-1161
SP  - 1014
TI  - Financial disincentives? A three-armed randomised controlled trial of the effect of financial Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) trial
T2  - British Journal of Ophthalmology
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311778
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29793929
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/61624
VL  - 102
ER  -
Download
  • news

Prof Alison Holmes appointed as inaugural Director of the Fleming Initiative

17 October 2024

 View more news
  • event
  • Seminar

–

Creating the antimicrobial stewards of the future: The importance of AMR education for children and young people

Online only
 View more events