Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to promote adherence to depot antipsychotic medication: economic evaluation of a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Background: Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis can promote adherence to depot antipsychotic medication, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been examined. Methods: Economic evaluation within a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. 141 patients under the care of 73 teams (clusters) were randomised to intervention or control; 138 patients with diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder or bipolar disorder participated. Intervention participants received £15 per depot injection over 12 months, additional to usual acute, mental and community primary health services. The control group received usual health services. Main outcome measures: incremental cost per 20% increase in adherence to depot antipsychotic medication; incremental cost of ‘good’ adherence (defined as taking at least 95% of the prescribed number of depot medications over the intervention period). Findings: Economic and outcome data for baseline and 12-month follow-up were available for 117 participants. The adjusted difference in adherence between groups was 12.2% (73.4% control vs. 85.6% intervention); the adjusted costs difference was £598 (95% CI -£4 533, £5 730). The extra cost per patient to increase adherence to depot medications by 20% was £982 (95% CI -£8 020, £14 000). The extra cost per patient of achieving 'good' adherence was £2 950 (CI -£19 400, £27 800). Probability of cost-effectiveness exceeded 97.5%at willingness-to-pay values of £14 000 for a 20% increase in adherence and £27 800 for good adherence. Interpretation: Offering a modest financial incentive to people with psychosis is cost-effective in promoting adherence to depot antipsychotic medication. Direct healthcare costs (including costs of the financial incentive) are unlikely to be increased by this intervention. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.com 7776928

Financial incentives to improve adherence to antipsychotic maintenance medication in non-adherent patients: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Poor adherence to long-term antipsychotic injectable (LAI) medication in patients with psychotic disorders is associated with a range of negative outcomes. No psychosocial intervention has been found to be consistently effective in improving adherence. Objectives: To test whether or not offering financial incentives is effective and cost-effective in improving adherence and to explore patient and clinician experiences with such incentives. Design: A cluster randomised controlled trial with economic and nested qualitative evaluation. The intervention period lasted for 12 months with 24 months’ follow-up. The unit of randomisation was mental health teams in the community. Setting: Community teams in secondary mental health care. Participants: Patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective psychosis or bipolar illness, receiving ≤ 75% of their prescribed LAI medication. In total, 73 teams with 141 patients (intervention n = 78 and control n = 63) were included. Interventions: Participants in the intervention group received £15 for each LAI medication. Patients in the control group received treatment as usual. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: adherence to LAI medication (the percentage of received out of those prescribed). Secondary outcomes: percentage of patients with at least 95% adherence; clinical global improvement; subjective quality of life; satisfaction with medication; hospitalisation; adverse events; and costs. Qualitative evaluation: semistructured interviews with patients in the intervention group and their clinicians. Results: Primary outcome: outcome data were available for 131 patients. Baseline adherence was 69% in the intervention group and 67% in the control group. During the intervention period, adherence was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (85% vs. 71%) [adjusted mean difference 11.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9% to 19.0%; p = 0.003]. Secondary outcome: patients in the intervention group showed statistically significant improvement in adherence of at least 95% (adjusted odds ratio 8.21, 95% CI 2.00 to 33.67; p = 0.003) and subjective quality of life (difference in means 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.15; p = 0.002). Follow-ups: after incentives stopped, adherence did not differ significantly between groups, neither during the first 6 months (adjusted difference in means –7.4%, 95% CI –17.0% to 2.1%; p = 0.175) nor during the period from month 7 to month 24 (difference in means –5.7%, 95% CI –13.1% to 1.7%; p = 0.130). Cost-effectiveness: the average costs of the financial incentives was £303. Overall costs per patient were somewhat higher in the intervention group, but the difference was not significant. Semistructured interviews: the majority of patients and clinicians reported positive experiences with the incentives beyond their monetary value. These included improvement in the therapeutic relationship. The majority of both patients and clinicians perceived no negative impact after the intervention was stopped after 1 year. Conclusions: Financial incentives are effective in improving adherence to LAI medication. Health-care costs (including costs of the financial incentive) are unlikely to be increased substantially by this intervention. Once the incentives stop, the advantage is not maintained. The experiences of both patients and clinicians are largely, but not exclusively, positive. Whether or not financial incentives are effective for patients with more favourable background, those on oral mediation or for shorter or longer time periods remains unknown. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77769281. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Spinning, Spooning and the Seductions of Flirtatious Masculinity in Contemporary Politics

This paper explores the relationships between masculinity, flirtation and fantasy within the promotional arena of politics and PR. Flirtation is associated with coquetry and play, connoting a lack of seriousness, and in political flirtation, the desire to move between different opinions and ideas. Flirtation is often linked with femininity. Yet against a backdrop of masculinity in crisis, the study of flirtation, with its connotations of ambiguity and frustrated desire, is useful to explore the uncertainties of masculinities today. Dilemmas about flirtation as a tantalising performance resonate with misgivings about the seductive nature of political spin and the desire of politicians to woo audiences by flirting to the camera. Taking examples of politicians such as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, this paper discusses the possibilities of flirtatious masculinity as a counter-hegemonic strategy within the symbolic battleground of Western politics, a struggle largely played out in print and digital media

A first update on mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19

peer reviewe