Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27314953›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Emma L Giles, Frauke Becker, Laura Ternent, Falko F Sniehotta, Elaine McColl, Jean Adams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Design of Financial Incentive Programs for Smoking Cessation: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Emma L GilesInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Frauke BeckerInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Laura TernentInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Falko F SniehottaInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Elaine McCollInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Jean AdamsInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5733-7830

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthy behaviours are important determinants of health and disease, but many people find it difficult to perform these behaviours. Systematic reviews support the use of personal financial incentives to encourage healthy behaviours. There is concern that financial incentives may be unacceptable to the public, those delivering services and policymakers, but this has been poorly studied. Without widespread acceptability, financial incentives are unlikely to be widely implemented. We sought to answer two questions: what are the relative preferences of UK adults for attributes of financial incentives for healthy behaviours? Do preferences vary according to the respondents' socio-demographic characteristics?

methodsWe conducted an online discrete choice experiment. Participants were adult members of a market research panel living in the UK selected using quota sampling. Preferences were examined for financial incentives for: smoking cessation, regular physical activity, attendance for vaccination, and attendance for screening. Attributes of interest (and their levels) were: type of incentive (none, cash, shopping vouchers or lottery tickets); value of incentive (a continuous variable); schedule of incentive (same value each week, or value increases as behaviour change is sustained); other information provided (none, written information, face-to-face discussion, or both); and recipients (all eligible individuals, people living in low-income households, or pregnant women).

resultsCash or shopping voucher incentives were preferred as much as, or more than, no incentive in all cases. Lower value incentives and those offered to all eligible individuals were preferred. Preferences for additional information provided alongside incentives varied between behaviours. Younger participants and men were more likely to prefer incentives. There were no clear differences in preference according to educational attainment.

conclusionsCash or shopping voucher-type financial incentives for healthy behaviours are not necessarily less acceptable than no incentives to UK adults.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChoice BehaviorExerciseFemaleHealthy LifestyleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationSmoking CessationSocioeconomic FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID27314953
PMCPMC4912063

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.