People with chronic illnesses can benefit from self-management education. However, those benefits are said to decay over time (there is some evidence that this 'decay of impact' does occur), and the reinforcements used to prevent that decay appear to be ineffective. We hypothesize that the reinforcements appear to be ineffective because decay of impact occurs only in a subgroup of these programs' participants, so any benefits of reinforcements in that subgroup are concealed by whole-group summary statistics. We also hypothesize that reinforcements can benefit those who need them - those who would otherwise have decay. One approach to testing these hypotheses requires analysis of individual-level data, which is uncommon in this field. Some useful data could come from studies that have already been completed, but the strongest evidence will require prospectively designed tests in future trials. If the hypotheses are false, then time and resources spent on reinforcements can be saved or redirected. If the hypotheses are true, then reinforcements can be implemented with less waste and they can be made more effective. These programs can also be improved to better fit their users' needs, and there can be a new basis for evaluating the programs' effectiveness.