Dataset Information

A Simulation Modeling Framework to Optimize Programs Using Financial Incentives to Motivate Health Behavior Change.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:While increasingly popular among mid- to large-size employers, using financial incentives to induce health behavior change among employees has been controversial, in part due to poor quality and generalizability of studies to date. Thus, fundamental questions have been left unanswered: To generate positive economic returns on investment, what level of incentive should be offered for any given type of incentive program and among which employees? METHODS:We constructed a novel modeling framework that systematically identifies how to optimize marginal return on investment from programs incentivizing behavior change by integrating commonly collected data on health behaviors and associated costs. We integrated "demand curves" capturing individual differences in response to any given incentive with employee demographic and risk factor data. We also estimated the degree of self-selection that could be tolerated: that is, the maximum percentage of already-healthy employees who could enroll in a wellness program while still maintaining positive absolute return on investment. In a demonstration analysis, the modeling framework was applied to data from 3000 worksite physical activity programs across the nation. RESULTS:For physical activity programs, the incentive levels that would optimize marginal return on investment ($367/employee/year) were higher than average incentive levels currently offered ($143/employee/year). Yet a high degree of self-selection could undermine the economic benefits of the program; if more than 17% of participants came from the top 10% of the physical activity distribution, the cost of the program would be expected to always be greater than its benefits. DISCUSSION:Our generalizable framework integrates individual differences in behavior and risk to systematically estimate the incentive level that optimizes marginal return on investment.

SUBMITTER: Basu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4801226 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Simulation Modeling Framework to Optimize Programs Using Financial Incentives to Motivate Health Behavior Change.

Basu Sanjay S Kiernan Michaela M

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20150514 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>While increasingly popular among mid- to large-size employers, using financial incentives to induce health behavior change among employees has been controversial, in part due to poor quality and generalizability of studies to date. Thus, fundamental questions have been left unanswered: To generate positive economic returns on investment, what level of incentive should be offered for any given type of incentive program and among which employees?<h4>Methods</h4>We constructed ...[more]

PMID: 25977362

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionExperts continue to debate how to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Some experts advocate for financial incentives. Others argue that financial incentives, especially large ones, will have counterproductive psychological effects, reducing the percent of people who want to vaccinate. Among a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. sample of lower income adults, for whom vaccine uptake has lagged compared with higher income adults, we empirically examine such claims about relatively large and small guaranteed cash payments.MethodsIn 2021, we conducted a randomized, controlled experiment among U.S. residents with incomes below $80,000 who reported being unvaccinated against COVID-19. Study participants were randomized to one of four study arms. In two arms, respondents first learned about a policy proposal to pay $1,000 or $200 to those who received COVID-19 vaccination and were then asked if, given that policy, they would want to vaccinate. In the two other arms, respondents received either an educational message about this vaccine or received no vaccine information and were then asked if they wanted to vaccinate for COVID-19. The primary analyses estimated and compared the overall percentage in each study arm that reported wanting to vaccinate for COVID-19. In other analyses, we estimated and compared these percentages for subgroups of interest, including gender, race/ethnicity, and education.Main resultsAmong 2,290 unvaccinated adults, 79.7% (95%CI, 76.4-83.0%) of those who learned about the proposed $1,000 payment wanted to get vaccinated, compared with 58.9% (95%CI, 54.8-63.0%) in the control condition without vaccine information, a difference of 20 percentage points. Among those who learned of the proposed $200 payment, 74.8% (95% CI, 71.3-78.4%) wanted to vaccinate. Among those who learned only about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, 68.9% (95% CI, 65.1-72.7%) wanted to vaccinate. Findings were consistent across various subgroups.DiscussionDespite several study limitations, the results do not support concerns that the financial incentive policies aimed to increase COVID-19 vaccination would have counterproductive effects. Instead, those who learned about a policy with a large or small financial incentive were more likely than those in the control condition to report that they would want to vaccinate. The positive effects extended to subgroups that have been less likely to vaccinate, including younger adults, those with less education, and racial and ethnic minorities. Financial incentives of $1,000 performed similarly to those offering only $200.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentive interventions have been suggested as one method of promoting healthy behaviour change.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions for encouraging healthy behaviour change; to explore whether effects vary according to the type of behaviour incentivised, post-intervention follow-up time, or incentive value.Data sourcesSearches were of relevant electronic databases, research registers, www.google.com, and the reference lists of previous reviews; and requests for information sent to relevant mailing lists.Eligibility criteriaControlled evaluations of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions, compared to no intervention or usual care, to encourage healthy behaviour change, in non-clinical adult populations, living in high-income countries, were included.Study appraisal and synthesisThe Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess all included studies. Meta-analysis was used to explore the effect of financial incentive interventions within groups of similar behaviours and overall. Meta-regression was used to determine if effect varied according to post-intervention follow up time, or incentive value.ResultsSeventeen papers reporting on 16 studies on smoking cessation (n = 10), attendance for vaccination or screening (n = 5), and physical activity (n = 1) were included. In meta-analyses, the average effect of incentive interventions was greater than control for short-term (? six months) smoking cessation (relative risk (95% confidence intervals): 2.48 (1.77 to 3.46); long-term (>six months) smoking cessation (1.50 (1.05 to 2.14)); attendance for vaccination or screening (1.92 (1.46 to 2.53)); and for all behaviours combined (1.62 (1.38 to 1.91)). There was not convincing evidence that effects were different between different groups of behaviours. Meta-regression found some, limited, evidence that effect sizes decreased as post-intervention follow-up period and incentive value increased. However, the latter effect may be confounded by the former.ConclusionsThe available evidence suggests that financial incentive interventions are more effective than usual care or no intervention for encouraging healthy behaviour change.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42012002393.

Project description:ImportanceFinancial incentives may improve health behaviors. It is unknown whether incentives are more effective if they target a key process (eg, medication adherence), an outcome (eg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels), or both.ObjectiveTo determine whether financial incentives awarded daily for process (adherence to statins), awarded quarterly for outcomes (personalized LDL-C level targets), or awarded for process plus outcomes induce reductions in LDL-C levels compared with control.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 12, 2015, to October 3, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 4, 2018, to May 27, 2021, at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia. Participants included 764 adults with an active statin prescription, elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C level, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication.InterventionsInterventions lasted 12 months. All participants received a smart pill bottle to measure adherence and underwent LDL-C measurement every 3 months. In the process group, daily financial incentives were awarded for statin adherence. In the outcomes group, participants received incentives for achieving or sustaining at least a quarterly 10-mg/dL LDL-C level reduction. The process plus outcomes group participants were eligible for incentives split between statin adherence and quarterly LDL-C level targets.Main outcomes and measuresChange in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months, determined using intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsOf the 764 participants, 390 were women (51.2%); mean (SD) age was 62.4 (10.0) years, 310 (40.6%) had diabetes, 298 (39.0%) had hypertension, and mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 138.8 (37.6) mg/dL. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were -36.9 mg/dL (95% CI, -42.0 to -31.9 mg/dL) among control participants, -40.0 mg/dL (95% CI, -44.7 to -35.4 mg/dL) among process participants, -41.6 mg/dL (95% CI, -46.3 to -37.0 mg/dL) among outcomes participants, and -42.8 mg/dL (95% CI, -47.4 to -38.1 mg/dL) among process plus outcomes participants. In exploratory analysis among participants with diabetes and hypertension, no spillover effects of incentives were detected compared with the control group on hemoglobin A1c level and blood pressure over 12 months.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, process-, outcomes-, or process plus outcomes-based financial incentives did not improve LDL-C levels vs control.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02246959.

Dataset Information

A Simulation Modeling Framework to Optimize Programs Using Financial Incentives to Motivate Health Behavior Change.

Publications

A Simulation Modeling Framework to Optimize Programs Using Financial Incentives to Motivate Health Behavior Change.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets