Journal of Diabetes Investigation (Sep 2021)

Screening for diabetic retinopathy with different levels of financial incentive in a randomized controlled trial

  • Jin Xiao Lian,
  • Sarah Morag McGhee,
  • Ching So,
  • Alfred Siu Kei Kwong,
  • Rita Sum,
  • Wendy Wing Sze Tsui,
  • David Vai Kiong Chao,
  • Jonathan Cheuk Hung Chan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13512
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 9
pp. 1632 – 1641

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Aims/Introduction To examine the impact of different levels of financial incentive in terms of fee subsidization on diabetic retinopathy screening in the private primary care setting in Hong Kong. Materials and Methods All general practitioners working in the private sector and registered in two electronic public databases were invited to participate. Consecutive patients with diabetes mellitus were then recruited by the participating practitioners. The recruited participants were randomly allocated to one of three screening groups with different fee levels (HK$0, HK$150 [US$19], HK$300 [US$39]) in a randomized controlled trial. Screening uptake and severity of diabetic retinopathy detected were compared. Results Out of 1,688 eligible practitioners, 105 participated and invited 402 patients, with 239 initially agreeing to participate (59.5%). After randomization, 78, 75 and 76 participants in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 fee groups, respectively, reconfirmed their participation and were offered screening at the relevant fee. The uptake of screening was 79.5% (62/78), 81.3% (61/75) and 63.2% (48/76), in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 groups, respectively (P < 0.018). Being in the HK$150 fee group was associated with higher uptake of screening than being in the HK$300 fee group (odds ratio 2.31, P = 0.039). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of any diabetic retinopathy (33.9%, 27.9% and 37.5%, P = 0.378) or sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy (4.8%, 8.2% and 16.7%; P = 0.092) among the groups. Conclusion A screening fee of HK$150, representing approximately a half subsidy, appears to be as effective in maximizing uptake as a full subsidy (HK$0) and without deterring those at high risk of diabetic retinopathy from screening.

Keywords