Adelaide Research and Scholarship
Schools and Disciplines
School of Population Health & Clinical Practice
General Practice Publications
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Type: ||Journal article|
|Title: ||Improving attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment in Australian general practice: an RCT of a monetary incentive for patients|
|Author: ||Stocks, Nigel Phillip|
Allan, James Andrew
Frank, Oliver Ralph
Williams, Susan Gay
|Citation: ||BMC Family Practice, 2012; 13:54|
|Publisher: ||BioMed Central Ltd.|
|Issue Date: ||2012|
|School/Discipline: ||School of Population Health and Clinical Practice : General Practice|
|Nigel Stocks, James Allan, Oliver Frank, Sue Williams and Philip Ryan|
|Abstract: ||Background: Preventive health care is an important part of general practice however uptake of activities by patients is variable. Monetary incentives for doctors have been used in the UK and Australia to improve rates of screening and immunisation. Few studies have focussed on incentives for patients to attend preventive health care examinations. Our objective was to investigate the use of a monetary incentive to increase patient attendance with their general practitioner for a cardiovascular risk assessment (CVRA).
Methods: A pragmatic RCT was conducted in two Australian general practices. Participating GPs underwent academic detailing for cardiovascular risk assessment. 301 patients aged 40–74, who did not have cardiovascular disease, were independently randomised to receive a letter inviting them to a no cost cardiovascular risk
assessment with their GP, or the same letter plus an offer of a $25 shopping voucher if they attended. An audit of patient medical records was also undertaken and a patient questionnaire administered to a sub sample of participants. Our main outcome measure was attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment.
Results: In the RCT, 56/301(18.6%) patients attended for cardiovascular risk assessment, 29/182 (15.9%) in the control group and 27/119 (22.7%) in the intervention group. The estimated difference of 6.8% (95% CI: -2.5% to 16.0%) was not statistically significant, P = 0.15. The audit showed that GPs may underestimate patients’ absolute cardiovascular risk and the questionnaire that mailed invitations from GPs for a CVRA may encourage patients to attend.
Conclusions: A small monetary incentive does not improve attendance for cardiovascular risk assessment. Further research should be undertaken to determine if there are other incentives that may increase attendance for preventive activities in the general practice setting.|
|Description: ||Extent: 6p.|
|Rights: ||© 2012 Stocks et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.|
|Appears in Collections:||General Practice Publications|
|View citing articles in: ||Web of Science|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.