Emma L Giles1, Shannon Robalino2, Falko F Sniehotta3, Jean Adams4, Elaine McColl5. 1. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: e.l.giles@ncl.ac.uk. 2. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: Shannon.robalino@ncl.ac.uk. 3. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: falko.sniehotta@ncl.ac.uk. 4. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE2 4AX, UK. Electronic address: jean.adams@ncl.ac.uk. 5. Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, 4th Floor William Leech Building, The Medical School, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE2 4HH, UK. Electronic address: elaine.mccoll@ncl.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives are effective in encouraging healthy behaviours, yet concerns about acceptability remain. We conducted a systematic review exploring acceptability of financial incentives for encouraging healthy behaviours. METHODS: Database, reference, and citation searches were conducted from the earliest available date to October 2014, to identify empirical studies and scholarly writing that: had an English language title, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and explored acceptability of financial incentives for healthy behaviours in members of the public, potential recipients, potential practitioners or policy makers. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighty one papers were included: 59 pieces of scholarly writing and 22 empirical studies, primarily exploring acceptability to the public. Five themes were identified: fair exchange, design and delivery, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, recipients, and impact on individuals and wider society. Although there was consensus that if financial incentives are effective and cost effective they are likely to be considered acceptable, a number of other factors also influenced acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives tend to be acceptable to the public when they are effective and cost-effective. Programmes that benefit recipients and wider society; are considered fair; and are delivered to individuals deemed appropriate are likely to be considered more acceptable.
OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives are effective in encouraging healthy behaviours, yet concerns about acceptability remain. We conducted a systematic review exploring acceptability of financial incentives for encouraging healthy behaviours. METHODS: Database, reference, and citation searches were conducted from the earliest available date to October 2014, to identify empirical studies and scholarly writing that: had an English language title, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and explored acceptability of financial incentives for healthy behaviours in members of the public, potential recipients, potential practitioners or policy makers. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighty one papers were included: 59 pieces of scholarly writing and 22 empirical studies, primarily exploring acceptability to the public. Five themes were identified: fair exchange, design and delivery, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, recipients, and impact on individuals and wider society. Although there was consensus that if financial incentives are effective and cost effective they are likely to be considered acceptable, a number of other factors also influenced acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives tend to be acceptable to the public when they are effective and cost-effective. Programmes that benefit recipients and wider society; are considered fair; and are delivered to individuals deemed appropriate are likely to be considered more acceptable.
Authors: David E Conroy; Donald Hedeker; H G McFadden; Christine A Pellegrini; Angela F Pfammatter; Siobhan M Phillips; Juned Siddique; Bonnie Spring Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Gabriel Urbanin; Wagner Meira; Alexandre Serpa; Danielle de Souza Costa; Leonardo Baldaçara; Ana Paula da Silva; Rafaela Guatimosim; Anísio Mendes Lacerda; Eduardo Araújo Oliveira; Andre Braule; Marco Aurélio Romano-Silva; Antônio Geraldo da Silva; Leandro Malloy-Diniz; Gisele Pappa; Débora Marques Miranda Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2022-06-15
Authors: Kimberly C Kirby; Matthew J Dwyer; Connor Burrows; Dustin A Fife; Elena Bresani; Mary Tabit; Bethany R Raiff Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-04-08
Authors: Emma L Giles; Matthew Holmes; Elaine McColl; Falko F Sniehotta; Jean M Adams Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Jean Adams; Rebekah J McNaughton; Sarah Wigham; Darren Flynn; Laura Ternent; Janet Shucksmith Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gaby Judah; Ivo Vlaev; Laura Gunn; Dominic King; Derek King; Jonathan Valabhji; Ara Darzi; Colin Bicknell Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 2.209