Prognostic awareness and prognostic information preferences among advanced cancer patients in Kenya

Background: Cancer is the third leading cause of death in Kenya. Yet, little is known about prognostic awareness and preferences for prognostic information. Aim: To assess the prevalence of prognostic awareness and preference for prognostic information among advanced cancer patients in Kenya. Setting: Outpatient medical oncology and palliative care clinics and inpatient medical and surgical wards of Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (MTRH) in Eldoret, Kenya. Methods: The authors surveyed 207 adults with advanced solid cancers. The survey comprised validated measures developed for a multi-site study of end-of-life care in advanced cancer patients. Outcome variables included prognostic awareness and preference for prognostic information. Results: More than one-third of participants (36%) were unaware of their prognosis and most (67%) preferred not to receive prognostic information. Increased age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.07) and education level (OR: 1.18, CI: 1.08, 1.30) were associated with a higher likelihood of preference to receive prognostic information, while increased symptom burden (OR= 0.94, CI: 0.90, 0.99) and higher perceived household income levels (lower-middle vs low: OR= 0.19; CI: 0.09, 0.44; and upper middle- or high vs low: OR= 0.22, CI: 0.09, 0.56) were associated with lower odds of preferring prognostic information. Conclusion: Results reveal low levels of prognostic awareness and little interest in receiving prognostic information among advanced cancer patients in Kenya. Contribution: Given the important role of prognostic awareness in providing patient-centred care, efforts to educate patients in Kenya on the value of this information should be a priority, especially among younger patients

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

Wireless Home Blood Pressure Monitoring System With Automatic Outcome-Based Feedback and Financial Incentives to Improve Blood Pressure in People With Hypertension: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundHypertension is prevalent in Singapore and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and increased health care costs. Strategies to lower blood pressure include lifestyle modifications and home blood pressure monitoring. Nonetheless, adherence to home blood pressure monitoring remains low. This protocol details an algorithm for remote management of primary care patients with hypertension. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine whether wireless home blood pressure monitoring with or without financial incentives is more effective at reducing systolic blood pressure than nonwireless home blood pressure monitoring (usual care). MethodsThis study was designed as a randomized controlled open-label superiority study. A sample size of 224 was required to detect differences of 10 mmHg in average systolic blood pressure. Participants were to be randomized, in the ratio of 2:3:3, into 1 of 3 parallel study arms :(1) usual care, (2) wireless home blood pressure monitoring, and (3) wireless home blood pressure monitoring with financial incentives. The primary outcome was the mean change in systolic blood pressure at month 6. The secondary outcomes were the mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure, cost of financial incentives, time taken for the intervention, adherence to home blood pressure monitoring, effectiveness of the framing of financial incentives in decreasing nonadherence to blood pressure self-monitoring and the adherence to antihypertensive medication at month 6. ResultsThis study was approved by SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board and registered. Between January 24, 2018 and July 10, 2018, 42 participants (18.75% of the required sample size) were enrolled, and 33 participants completed the month 6 assessment by January 31, 2019. ConclusionsDue to unforeseen events, the study was stopped prematurely; therefore, no results are available. Depending on the blood pressure information received from the patients, the algorithm can trigger immediate blood pressure advice (eg, Accident and Emergency department visit advice for extremely high blood pressure), weekly feedback on blood pressure monitoring, medication titration, or skipping of routine follow-ups. The inclusion of financial incentives framed as health capital provides a novel idea on how to promote adherence to remote monitoring, and ultimately, improve chronic disease management. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT 03368417; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03368417 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/2749