The effect of individual and mixed rewards on diabetes management: A feasibility randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Incentives play a role in introducing health-related benefits, but no interventions using mixed incentives, i.e. a combination of individual and group incentives, have been tested in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the feasibility of implementing individual- and mixed-incentives, with and without a supportive partner, on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control and weight loss among patients with T2DM. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> This is a feasibility, sex-stratified, single-blinded, randomized controlled study in individuals with T2DM. All participants received diabetes education and tailored goal setting for weight and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were randomly assigned into three arms: individual incentives (Arm 1), mixed incentives-altruism (Arm 2), and mixed incentives-cooperation (Arm 3). Participants were accompanied by a diabetes educator every other week to monitor targets, and the intervention period lasted 3 months. The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c at 3 months from baseline. Weight and change body mass index (BMI) were considered as secondary outcomes. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> Out of 783 patients screened, a total of 54 participants, 18 per study arm, were enrolled and 44 (82%) completed the 3-month follow-up. Mean baseline HbA1c values were 8.5%, 7.9% and 8.2% in Arm 1, Arm 2, and Arm 3, respectively. At 3 months, participants in all three study arms showed reductions in HbA1c ranging from -0.9% in Arm 2 to -1.4% in Arm 1. Weight and BMI also showed reductions. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> Individual and mixed cash incentives show important reductions in HbA1c, weight and BMI in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after 3 months. Recruitment and uptake of the intervention were successfully accomplished demonstrating feasibility to conduct larger effectiveness studies to test individual and mixed economic incentives for diabetes management. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier <ns4:underline> <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns3="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns3:href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02891382">NCT02891382</ns4:ext-link> </ns4:underline> </ns4:p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".