4.6 Article

Financial Incentive Increases CPAP Acceptance in Patients from Low Socioeconomic Background

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033178

关键词

-

资金

  1. Israel Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research [A/147/2003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We explored whether financial incentives have a role in patients' decisions to accept (purchase) a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device in a healthcare system that requires cost sharing. Design: Longitudinal interventional study. Patients: The group receiving financial incentive (n = 137, 50.8 +/- 10.6 years, apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) 38.7 +/- 19.9 events/hr) and the control group (n = 121, 50.9 +/- 10.3 years, AHI 39.9 +/- 22) underwent attendant titration and a two-week adaptation to CPAP. Patients in the control group had a co-payment of $330-660; the financial incentive group paid a subsidized price of $55. Results: CPAP acceptance was 43% greater (p = 0.02) in the financial incentive group. CPAP acceptance among the low socioeconomic strata (n = 113) (adjusting for age, gender, BMI, tobacco smoking) was enhanced by financial incentive (OR, 95% CI) (3.43, 1.09-10.85), age (1.1, 1.03-1.17), AHI (>30 vs. <30) (4.87, 1.56-15.2), and by family/friends who had positive experience with CPAP (4.29, 1.05-17.51). Among average/high-income patients (n = 145) CPAP acceptance was affected by AHI (>30 vs. <30) (3.16, 1.14-8.75), living with a partner (8.82, 1.03-75.8) but not by the financial incentive. At one-year follow-up CPAP adherence was similar in the financial incentive and control groups, 35% and 39%, respectively (p = 0.82). Adherence rate was sensitive to education (+yr) (1.28, 1.06-1.55) and AHI (>30 vs. <30) (5.25, 1.34-18.5). Conclusions: Minimizing cost sharing reduces a barrier for CPAP acceptance among low socioeconomic status patients. Thus, financial incentive should be applied as a policy to encourage CPAP treatment, especially among low socioeconomic strata patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据