MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of individual and mixed rewards on diabetes management: A feasibility randomized controlled trial

2018· preprint· en· W2964854901 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Jaime Miranda, María Lazo‐Porras, Antonio Bernabé‐Ortiz, M. Amalia Pesantes, Francisco Diez‐Canseco, Socorro del Pilar Cornejo, Antonio J. Trujillo

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteFogarty International CenterNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteInter-American Institute for Global Change ResearchAlliance for Health Policy and Systems ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungGrand Challenges CanadaWellcomeNational Science FoundationDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilWorld Diabetes FoundationWorld-India Diabetes Foundation (USA)
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02891382

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWellcome Open ResearchSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207