Lutge Elizabeth E, Wiysonge Charles Shey, Knight Stephen E, Volmink Jimmy
Research Programme, Health Systems Trust, Durban, South Africa..
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1:CD007952. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007952.pub2.
Patient adherence to medications, particularly for conditions requiring prolonged treatment such as tuberculosis, is frequently less than ideal, and can result in poor treatment outcomes. Material incentives (given as cash, vouchers and tokens), have been used to improve adherence.
To assess the effects of material incentives in people undergoing diagnostic testing, or receiving prophylactic or curative therapy, for tuberculosis.
We undertook a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; Science Citation Index; and reference lists of relevant publications; to 22 June 2011.
Randomized controlled trials of material incentives in patients being investigated for tuberculosis, or on treatment for latent or active disease.
At least two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The effects of interventions are compared using risk ratios (RR), and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
We identified 11 eligible studies. Ten were conducted in the USA: in adolescents (one trial), in injection drug or cocaine users (four trials), in homeless adults (three trials), and in prisoners (two trials). One additional trial recruited malnourished men receiving active treatment for tuberculosis in Timor-Leste.Material incentives may increase the return rate for reading of tuberculin skin test results compared to normal care (two trials, 1371 participants: RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.29, low quality evidence).Similarly, incentives probably improve clinic re-attendance for initiation or continuation of antituberculosis prophylaxis (three trials, 595 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.96, moderate quality evidence), and may improve subsequent completion of prophylaxis in some settings (three trials, 869 participants: RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.58, low quality evidence).We currently don't know if incentives can improve long-term adherence and completion of antituberculosis treatment for active disease. Only one trial has assessed this and the incentive, given as a daily hot meal, was not well received by the population due to the inconvenience of attending the clinic at midday (one trial, 265 participants, RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.12, very low quality evidence).Several trials have compared different forms or levels of incentive. These comparisons remain limited to single trials and robust conclusions cannot be made. In summary, cash incentives may be more effective than non-cash incentives (return for test results: one trial, 651 participants: RR 1.13, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.19, low quality evidence, adherence to tuberculosis prophylaxis: one trial, 141 participants: RR 1.26, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.56, low quality evidence) and higher amounts of cash may be more effective than lower amounts (return for test results: one trial, 404 participants: RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.16, low quality evidence).Material incentives may also be more effective than motivational education at improving return for tuberculin skin test results (low quality evidence), but may be no more effective than peer counselling, or structured education at improving continuation or completion of prophylaxis (low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the use of material incentives to improve return rates for tuberculosis diagnostic test results and adherence to antituberculosis preventive therapy. The data are currently limited to trials among predominantly male drug users, homeless, and prisoner subpopulations in the USA, and therefore the results are not easily generalised to the wider adult population, or to low- and middle-income countries, where the tuberculosis burden is highest.Further high-quality studies are needed to assess both the costs and effectiveness of incentives to improve adherence to long-term treatment of tuberculosis.
患者对药物的依从性,尤其是对于像结核病这种需要长期治疗的疾病,常常不尽人意,可能导致治疗效果不佳。物质激励(如现金、代金券和代币)已被用于提高依从性。
评估物质激励对接受结核病诊断检测、预防性治疗或治愈性治疗的人群的影响。
我们全面检索了Cochrane传染病小组专业注册库;Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL);MEDLINE;EMBASE;拉丁美洲及加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(LILACS);科学引文索引;以及相关出版物的参考文献列表,检索截至2011年6月22日。
针对正在接受结核病调查或正在接受潜伏性或活动性疾病治疗的患者进行物质激励的随机对照试验。
至少两名作者独立筛选和选择研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。使用风险比(RR)比较干预措施的效果,并给出95%置信区间(CI)。使用GRADE评估证据质量。
我们确定了11项符合条件的研究。其中10项在美国进行:针对青少年(1项试验);注射吸毒者或可卡因使用者(4项试验);无家可归的成年人(3项试验);以及囚犯(2项试验)。另外1项试验在东帝汶招募了正在接受结核病积极治疗的营养不良男性。与常规护理相比,物质激励可能会提高结核菌素皮肤试验结果的读取返回率(2项试验,1371名参与者:RR 2.16,95%CI 1.41至3.29,低质量证据)。同样,激励措施可能会改善抗结核预防治疗开始或持续阶段的复诊率(3项试验,595名参与者:RR 1.58,95%CI 1.27至1.96,中等质量证据),并且在某些情况下可能会提高后续预防治疗的完成率(3项试验,869名参与者:RR 1.79,95%CI 0.70至4.58,低质量证据)。我们目前尚不清楚激励措施能否提高活动性疾病的长期依从性和抗结核治疗的完成率。仅有1项试验对此进行了评估,由于在中午到诊所不方便,作为每日热餐提供的激励措施未被人群接受(1项试验,265名参与者,RR 0.98,95%CI 0.86至1.12,极低质量证据)。多项试验比较了不同形式或水平的激励措施。这些比较仅限于单项试验,无法得出有力结论。总之,现金激励可能比非现金激励更有效(检测结果返回:1项试验,651名参与者:RR 1.13,95%CI 1.(此处原文有误,应是1.07至1.19),低质量证据;抗结核预防治疗的依从性:1项试验(此处原文有误,应是141名参与者):RR 1.26,95%CI 1.02至1.56,低质量证据),并且较高金额的现金可能比较低金额更有效(检测结果返回:1项试验,404名参与者:RR 1.08,95%CI 1.01至1.16,低质量证据)。在提高结核菌素皮肤试验结果的返回率方面,物质激励可能也比动机教育更有效(低质量证据),但在提高预防治疗的持续或完成率方面,可能并不比同伴咨询或结构化教育更有效(低质量证据)。
支持使用物质激励来提高结核病诊断检测结果的返回率和抗结核预防性治疗依从性的证据有限。目前的数据仅限于美国主要针对男性吸毒者、无家可归者和囚犯亚人群的试验,因此结果不易推广到更广泛的成年人群,或结核病负担最高的低收入和中等收入国家。需要进一步的高质量研究来评估激励措施在提高结核病长期治疗依从性方面的成本和效果。