ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0062-5476
Current Organisation
Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 31-10-2018
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.14824.1
Abstract: Background: Incentives play a role in introducing health-related benefits, but no interventions using mixed incentives, i.e. a combination of in idual and group incentives, have been tested in in iduals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the feasibility of implementing in idual- 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 in iduals with T2DM. All participants received diabetes education and tailored goal setting for weight and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were randomly assigned into three arms: in idual 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: In idual 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 in idual and mixed economic incentives for diabetes management. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02891382
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 03-05-2018
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.14552.1
Abstract: Background: Weight loss is important for the control of type 2 diabetes mellitus but is difficult to achieve and sustain. Programmes employing financial incentives have been successful in areas such as smoking cessation. However, the optimum design for an incentivised programme for weight loss is undetermined, and may depend on social, cultural and demographic factors. Methods: An original questionnaire was designed whose items addressed respondent personal and health characteristics, and preferences for a hypothetical incentivised weight loss programme. One hundred people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited to complete the questionnaire from the endocrinology clinic of a public hospital in Lima, Peru. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed. Results: Ninety-five percent of subjects who had previously attempted to lose weight had found this either 'difficult' or 'very difficult'. Eighty-five percent of subjects would participate in an incentivised weight loss programme. Median suggested incentive for 1 kg weight loss every 2 weeks over 9 months was PEN 100 (~USD $30). Cash was preferred by 70% as payment method. Only 56% of subjects would participate in a deposit-contract scheme, and the median suggested deposit amount was PEN 20 (~USD $6). Eighty percent of subjects would share the incentive with a helper, and family members were the most common choice of helper. Conclusions: The challenge of achieving and sustaining weight loss is confirmed in this setting. Direct cash payments of PEN 100 were generally preferred, with substantial scope for involving a co-participant with whom the incentive could be shared. Employing direct financial incentives in future weight loss programmes appears to be widely acceptable among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 09-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2021-057597
Abstract: The aim of this review is to map out the use of process evaluation (PE) in complex interventions that address non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) to identify gaps in the design and conduct, as well as strengths, limitations and implications, of this type of research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Scoping review of PE studies of complex interventions implemented in LMICs. Six databases were searched focused on studies published since 2008. Embase, PubMed, EbscoHost, Web of Science (WOS), Virtual Health Library (VHL) Regional Portal and Global Index Medicus: Regional Indexes AIM (AFRO), LILACS (AMRO/PAHO), IMEMR (EMRO), IMSEAR (SEARO), WPRIM (WPRO) Global Index Regional Indexes, MEDLINE, SciELO. Studies conducted in LMICs on PEs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs published between January 2008 and January 2020. Other criteria were studies of interventions for people at risk or having physical and mental NCDs, and/or NTDs, and/or their healthcare providers and/or others related to achieve better health for these two disease groups. Studies were excluded if they were not reported in English or Spanish or Portuguese or French, not peer-reviewed articles, not empirical research and not human research. Data extracted to be evaluated were: available evidence in the utilisation of PE in the areas of NCDs and NTDs, including frameworks and theories used methods applied to conduct PEs and in a subs le, the barriers and facilitators to implement complex interventions identified through the PE. Variables were extracted and categorised. The information was synthesised through quantitative analysis by reporting frequencies and percentages. Qualitative analysis was also performed to understand facilitators and barriers presented in these studies. The implications for PEs, and how the information from the PE was used by researchers or other stakeholders were also assessed in this approach. 303 studies were identified, 79% were for NCDs, 12% used the label ‘PE’, 27% described a theory or framework for the PE, and 42% used mixed methods to analyse their findings. Acceptability, barriers and facilitators to implement the interventions, experiences and perceptions, and feasibility were the outcomes most frequently evaluated as part of the PEs. Barriers and facilitators themes identified were contextual factors, health system factors, human resources, attitudes and policy factors. PEs in NCDs and NTDs are used in LMICs with a wide variety of methods. This review identified many PEs that were not labelled by the authors as such, as well as a limited application of PE-related theories and frameworks, and heterogeneous reporting of this type of study.
Publisher: Instituto Nacional de Salud (Peru)
Date: 24-09-2020
DOI: 10.17843/RPMESP.2020.373.5980
Abstract: Las personas con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 infectadas por SARS-CoV-2 tienen mayores riesgos de desarrollar COVID-19 con complicaciones y de morir como consecuencia de ella. La diabetes es una condición crónica en la que se requiere continuidad de cuidados que implican un contacto con los establecimientos de salud, pues deben tener acceso regular a medicamentos, exámenes y citas con personal de salud. Esta continuidad de cuidados se ha visto afectada en el Perú a raíz de la declaratoria del estado de emergencia nacional, producto de la pandemia por la COVID-19 pues muchos establecimientos de salud han suspendido las consultas externas. Este artículo describe algunas estrategias que han desarrollado los diferentes proveedores de salud peruanos en el marco de la pandemia para proveer continuidad del cuidado a las personas con diabetes y finalmente brinda recomendaciones para que reciban los cuidados que necesitan a través del fortalecimiento del primer nivel de atención, como el punto de contacto más cercano con las personas con diabetes.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-05-2020
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 17-06-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-04-2020
DOI: 10.1111/DME.14298
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 10-02-2020
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.15531.1
Abstract: Background : Three previous clinical trials have found that thermometry use reduced diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) incidence four- to ten-fold among in iduals with diabetes at high-risk of developing a DFU. However, these benefits depend on patient adherence to self-assessment. Therefore, novel approaches to improve self-management thermometry adherence are needed. Our objective was to compare incidence of DFUs in the thermometry plus mobile health (mHealth) reminders intervention arm vs. thermometry-only control arm. Methods : We conducted a randomized trial, enrolling adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus at risk of foot ulcers (risk groups 2 or 3) but without foot ulcers at the time of recruitment and allocating them to control (instruction to use a liquid crystal-based foot thermometer daily) or intervention (same instruction supplemented with text and voice messages with reminders to use the device and messages to promote foot care) groups and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome was time to occurrence of DFU. A process evaluation was also conducted. Results : A total of 172 patients (63% women, mean age 61 years) were enrolled 86 to each study group. More patients enrolled in the intervention arm had a history of DFU (66% vs. 48%). Follow-up for the primary endpoint was complete for 158 of 172 participants (92%). DFU cumulative incidence was 24% (19 of 79) in the intervention arm and 11% (9 of 79) in the control arm. After adjusting for history of foot ulceration and study site, the Hazard Ratio (HR) for DFU was 1.44 (95% CI 0.65, 3.22). Adherence to ≥80% of daily temperature measurements was 87% (103 of 118) among the study participants who returned the logbook, with no difference between the intervention and control arms. Conclusions : This trial contributes to the evidence about the value of mHealth in preventing diabetes foot ulcers. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02373592 (27/02/2015)
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 05-02-2019
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.14824.3
Abstract: Background: Incentives play a role in introducing health-related benefits, but no interventions using mixed incentives, i.e. a combination of in idual and group incentives, have been tested in in iduals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the feasibility of implementing in idual- 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 in iduals with T2DM. All participants received diabetes education and tailored goal setting for weight and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were randomly assigned into three arms: in idual 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: In idual 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 in idual and mixed economic incentives for diabetes management. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02891382
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 21-11-2018
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.14824.2
Abstract: Background: Incentives play a role in introducing health-related benefits, but no interventions using mixed incentives, i.e. a combination of in idual and group incentives, have been tested in in iduals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the feasibility of implementing in idual- 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 in iduals with T2DM. All participants received diabetes education and tailored goal setting for weight and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were randomly assigned into three arms: in idual 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: In idual 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 in idual and mixed economic incentives for diabetes management. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02891382
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 28-08-2020
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.15531.2
Abstract: Background : Novel approaches to reduce diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) in low- and middle-income countries are needed. Our objective was to compare incidence of DFUs in the thermometry plus mobile health (mHealth) reminders (intervention) vs. thermometry-only (control). Methods : We conducted a randomized trial enrolling adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus at risk of foot ulcers (risk groups 2 or 3) but without foot ulcers at the time of recruitment, and allocating them to control (instruction to use a liquid crystal-based foot thermometer daily) or intervention (same instruction supplemented with text and voice messages with reminders to use the device and messages to promote foot care) groups, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome was time to occurrence of DFU. A process evaluation was also conducted. Results : A total of 172 patients (63% women, mean age 61 years) were enrolled 86 to each study group. More patients enrolled in the intervention arm had a history of previous DFU (66% vs. 48%). Follow-up for the primary endpoint was complete for 158 of 172 participants (92%). Adherence to ≥80% of daily temperature measurements was 87% (103 of 118) among the study participants who returned the logbook. DFU cumulative incidence was 24% (19 of 79) in the intervention arm and 11% (9 of 79) in the control arm. After adjusting for history of foot ulceration and study site, the hazard ratio (HR) for DFU was 1.44 (95% CI 0.65, 3.22). Conclusions : In our study, conducted in a low-income setting, the addition of mHealth to foot thermometry was not effective in reducing foot ulceration. Importantly, there was a higher rate of previous DFU in the intervention group, the adherence to thermometry was high, and the expected rates of DFU used in our s le size calculations were not met. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02373592 (27/02/2015)
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 02-09-2021
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.16947.2
Abstract: Background : Financial incentives may improve the initiation and engagement of behaviour change that reduce the negative outcomes associated with non-communicable diseases. There is still a paucity in guidelines or recommendations that help define key aspects of incentive-oriented interventions, including the type of incentive (e.g. cash rewards, vouchers), the frequency and magnitude of the incentive, and its mode of delivery. We aimed to systematically review the literature on financial incentives that promote healthy lifestyle behaviours or improve health profiles, and focused on the methodological approach to define the incentive intervention and its delivery. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on 26 July 2018 ( CRD42018102556 ). Methods : We sought studies in which a financial incentive was delivered to improve a health-related lifestyle behaviour (e.g., physical activity) or a health profile (e.g., HbA1c in people with diabetes). The search (which took place on March 3 rd 2018) was conducted using OVID (MEDLINE and Embase), CINAHL and Scopus. Results : The search yielded 7,575 results and 37 were included for synthesis. Of the total, 83.8% (31/37) of the studies were conducted in the US, and 40.5% (15/37) were randomised controlled trials. Only one study reported the background and rationale followed to develop the incentive and conducted a focus group to understand what sort of incentives would be acceptable for their study population. There was a degree of consistency across the studies in terms of the direction, form, certainty, and recipient of the financial incentives used, but the magnitude and immediacy of the incentives were heterogeneous. Conclusions : The available literature on financial incentives to improve health-related lifestyles rarely reports on the rationale or background that defines the incentive approach, the magnitude of the incentive and other relevant details of the intervention, and the reporting of this information is essential to foster its use as potential effective interventions.
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 25-06-2021
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.16947.1
Abstract: Background : Financial incentives may improve the initiation and engagement of behaviour change that reduce the negative outcomes associated with non-communicable diseases. There is still a paucity in guidelines or recommendations that help define key aspects of incentive-oriented interventions, including the type of incentive (e.g. cash rewards, vouchers), the frequency and magnitude of the incentive, and its mode of delivery. We aimed to systematically review the literature on financial incentives that promote healthy lifestyle behaviours or improve health profiles, and focused on the methodological approach to define the incentive intervention and its delivery. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on 26 July 2018 ( CRD42018102556 ). Methods : We sought studies in which a financial incentive was delivered to improve a health-related lifestyle behaviour (e.g., physical activity) or a health profile (e.g., HbA1c in people with diabetes). The search (which took place on March 3 rd 2018) was conducted using OVID (MEDLINE and Embase), CINAHL and Scopus. Results : The search yielded 7,575 results and 37 were included for synthesis. Of the total, 83.8% (31/37) of the studies were conducted in the US, and 40.5% (15/37) were randomised controlled trials. Only one study reported the background and rationale followed to develop the incentive and conducted a focus group to understand what sort of incentives would be acceptable for their study population. There was a degree of consistency across the studies in terms of the direction, form, certainty, and recipient of the financial incentives used, but the magnitude and immediacy of the incentives were heterogeneous. Conclusions : The available literature on financial incentives to improve health-related lifestyles rarely reports on the rationale or background that defines the incentive approach, the magnitude of the incentive and other relevant details of the intervention, and the reporting of this information is essential to foster its use as potential effective interventions.
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 27-09-2018
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.14552.2
Abstract: Background: Weight loss is important for the control of type 2 diabetes mellitus but is difficult to achieve and sustain. Programmes employing financial incentives have been successful in areas such as smoking cessation. However, the optimum design for an incentivised programme for weight loss is undetermined, and may depend on social, cultural and demographic factors. Methods: An original questionnaire was designed whose items addressed respondent personal and health characteristics, and preferences for a hypothetical incentivised weight loss programme. One hundred people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited to complete the questionnaire from the endocrinology clinic of a public hospital in Lima, Peru. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed. Results: Ninety-five percent of subjects who had previously attempted to lose weight had found this either 'difficult' or 'very difficult'. Eighty-five percent of subjects would participate in an incentivised weight loss programme. Median suggested incentive for 1 kg weight loss every 2 weeks over 9 months was PEN 100 (~USD $30). Cash was preferred by 70% as payment method. Only 56% of subjects would participate in a deposit-contract scheme, and the median suggested deposit amount was PEN 20 (~USD $6). Eighty percent of subjects would share the incentive with a helper, and family members were the most common choice of helper. Conclusions: The challenge of achieving and sustaining weight loss is confirmed in this setting. Direct cash payments of PEN 100 were generally preferred, with substantial scope for involving a co-participant with whom the incentive could be shared. Employing direct financial incentives in future weight loss programmes appears to be widely acceptable among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
No related grants have been discovered for Maria Lazo-Porras.