Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24534735›Full record

Trial reportSocial science & medicine (1982)2014

Does incentivising pill-taking 'crowd out' risk-information processing? Evidence from a web-based experiment.

Eleni Mantzari, Florian Vogt, Theresa M Marteau

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Social science & medicine (1982), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Are Payments to Human Research Subjects Ethically Suspect?Journal of clinical research best practices · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eleni MantzariHealth Psychology Section, King's College London, London, UK.
Florian VogtInstitute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Theresa M MarteauHealth Psychology Section, King's College London, London, UK; Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: theresa.marteau@kcl.ac.uk.
King's College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086031/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of financial incentives for changing health-related behaviours raises concerns regarding their potential to undermine the processing of risks associated with incentivised behaviours. Uncertainty remains about the validity of such concerns. This web-based experiment assessed the impact of financial incentives on i) willingness to take a pill with side-effects; ii) the time spent viewing risk-information and iii) risk-information processing, assessed by perceived-risk of taking the pill and knowledge of its side-effects. It further assesses whether effects are moderated by limiting cognitive capacity. Two-hundred and seventy-five UK-based university staff and students were recruited online under the pretext of being screened for a fictitious drug-trial. Participants were randomised to the offer of different compensation levels for taking a fictitious pill (£0; £25; £1000) and the presence or absence of a cognitive load task (presentation of five digits for later recall). Willingness to take the pill increased with the offer of £1000 (84% vs. 67%; OR 3.66, CI 95% 1.27-10.6), but not with the offer of £25 (79% vs. 67%; OR 1.68, CI 95% 0.71-4.01). Risk-information processing was unaffected by the offer of incentives. The time spent viewing the risk-information was affected by the offer of incentives, an effect moderated by cognitive load: Without load, time increased with the value of incentives (£1000: M = 304.4sec vs. £0: M = 37.8sec, p < 0.001; £25: M = 66.6sec vs. £0: M = 37.8sec, p < 0.001). Under load, time decreased with the offer of incentives (£1000: M = 48.9sec vs. £0: M = 132.7sec, p < 0.001; £25: M = 60.9sec vs. £0: M = 132.7sec, p < 0.001), but did not differ between the two incentivised groups (p = 1.00). This study finds no evidence to suggest incentives "crowd out" risk-information processing. On the contrary, incentives appear to signal risk, an effect, however, which disappears under cognitive load. Although these findings require replication, they highlight the need to maximise cognitive capacity when presenting information about incentivised health-related behaviours.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMental ProcessesMotivationAdolescentAdultDrug MonitoringFemaleHumansInternetMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSocioeconomic FactorsUnited KingdomYoung AdultFinancial incentivesHealth incentivesMedication adherencePill-takingRisk-informationRisksSide-effects

Identifiers

PMID24534735
PMCPMC3969102
OpenAlexW2085559958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.