Trial reportAmerican journal of health promotion : AJHP2021
Patients' Reactions to Being Offered Financial Incentives to Increase Colorectal Screening: A Qualitative Analysis.
Trial report in American journal of health promotion : AJHP, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Financial incentives increase uptake and perceived effectiveness of autonomous medical AI, yet patients still seek human reconfirmation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Experiences of conditional and unconditional cash transfers intended for improving health outcomes and health service use: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Lithuania: Description of the 5-Year Performance on Population Level.Cancers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore financial incentives as an intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) adherence among traditionally disadvantaged patients who have never been screened or are overdue for screening. APPROACH: We used qualitative methods to describe patients' attitudes toward the offer of incentives, plans for future screening, and additional barriers and facilitators to CRCS.
settingKaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA).
participantsKPWA patients who were due or overdue for CRCS.
methodWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 37 patients who were randomized to 1 of 2 incentives (guaranteed $10 or a lottery for $50) to complete CRCS. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative content approach.
resultsPatients generally had positive attitudes toward both types of incentives, however, half did not recall the incentive offer at the time of the interview. Among those who recalled the offer, 95% were screened compared to only 25% among those who did not remember the offer. Most screeners stated that staying healthy was their primary motivator for screening, but many suggested that the incentive helped them prioritize and complete screening.
conclusionsIncentives to complete CRCS may help motivate patients who would like to screen but have previously procrastinated. Future studies should ensure that the incentive offer is noticeable and shorten the deadline for completion of FIT screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.