How do financial (dis)incentives influence health behaviour and costs? Protocol for a systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
In this era of rising healthcare costs, there is a growing interest in understanding how funding policies can be used to improve health and healthcare efficiency. Financial incentives (eg, vouchers or access to health insurance) or disincentives (eg, fines or out-of-pocket costs) affect behaviours. To date, reviews have explored the effects of financial (dis)incentives on patient health and behaviour by focusing on specific behaviours or geographical areas. The objective of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview on the use of financial (dis)incentives as a means of influencing health-related behaviour and costs in randomised trials.Methods and analysis
We will search electronic databases, clinical trial registries and websites of health economic organisations for randomised controlled trials. The initial searches, which were conducted on 13 January 2018, will be updated every 12 months until the completion of data analysis. The reference lists of included studies will be manually screened to identify additional eligible studies. Two researchers will independently review titles, abstracts and full texts to determine eligibility according to a set of predetermined inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted from included studies using a form developed and piloted by the research team. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.Ethics and dissemination
Ethics approval is not required since this is a review of published data. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant conferences.Prospero registration number
CRD42018097140.
SUBMITTER: Humphries B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6501998 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Offering a financial incentive ('Money for Medication') is effective in improving adherence to treatment with depot antipsychotic medications. We investigated the cost-effectiveness in terms of medical costs and judicial expenses of using financial incentives to improve adherence. The effects of financial incentives on depot medication adherence were evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group received €30 a month over 12 months if antipsychotic depot medication was accepted. The control group received mental health care as usual. For 133 patients outcomes were calculated based on self-reported service use and delinquent behaviour and expressed as standard unit costs to value resource use.The financial incentive resulted in higher average costs related to mental health care (€449.6 versus €355.7). and lower medical costs related to other healthcare services (€52.0 versus €78.4). Relevant differences in social costs related to delinquent behaviour were not found. Although wide confidence intervals indicate uncertainty, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio's (ICER) indicate that it costs €2080 for achieving a 20% increase in adherence or €3332 for achieving over 80% adherence. In sum, offering money as financial incentive for increasing compliance did not lead to an overall cost reduction as compared to care as usual. Trial registration NTR2350, 01 June 2010.
| S-EPMC6131864 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPolicies to use financial incentives to encourage healthy behaviour are controversial. Much of this controversy is played out in the mass media, both reflecting and shaping public opinion.ObjectiveTo describe U.K. mass media coverage of incentive schemes, comparing schemes targeted at different client groups and assessing the relative prominence of the views of different interest groups.DesignThematic content analysis.SubjectsNational and local news coverage in newspapers, news media targeted at health-care providers and popular websites between January 2005 and February 2010.SettingU.K. mass media.ResultsThe study included 210 articles. Fifteen separate arguments favourable towards schemes, and 19 unfavourable, were identified. Overall, coverage was more favourable than unfavourable, although most articles reported a mix of views. Arguments about the prevalence and seriousness of the health problems targeted by incentive schemes were uncontested. Moral and ethical objections to such schemes were common, focused in particular on recipients such as drug users or the overweight who were already stereotyped as morally deficient, and these arguments were largely uncontested. Arguments about the effectiveness of schemes and their potential for benefit or harm were areas of greater contestation. Government, public health and other health-care provider interests dominated favourable coverage; opposition came from rival politicians, taxpayers' representatives, certain charities and from some journalists themselves.ConclusionsThose promoting incentive schemes for people who might be regarded as 'undeserving' should plan a media strategy that anticipates their public reception.
| S-EPMC4180042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHPV vaccination reduces the risk of cervical cancer. Uptake however, of the 'catch-up' campaign in England for 17-18 year old girls is below the 80% NHS target. The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to assess the impact of financial incentives on (a) the uptake and completion of an HPV vaccination programme and (b) the quality of the decisions to undertake the vaccination.Method/designOne thousand (n = 1000) 16-18 year-old girls will be invited to participate in an HPV vaccination programme: Five-hundred (n = 500) will have received a previous invitation to get vaccinated but will have failed to do so (previous non-attenders) and 500 will not have previously received an invitation (first-time invitees). Girls will be randomly selected from eligible participants who are registered with a GP in areas covered by the Birmingham East and North (BEN) and Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trusts. The two samples of girls will be randomised to receive either a standard vaccination invitation letter or an invitation letter including the offer of vouchers worth £45 for receiving three vaccinations. Girls will also complete a questionnaire to assess the quality of their decisions to be vaccinated. The primary outcome will be uptake of the 1st and 3rd vaccinations. The secondary outcome will be the quality of the decisions to undertake the vaccination, measured by assessing attitudes towards and knowledge of the HPV vaccination.DiscussionThe key results will be: a) the effectiveness of financial incentives in increasing uptake of the 1st and 3rd vaccinations; b) the role of participants' socio-economic status in the moderation of the impact of incentives on uptake; and c) the impact of incentives on the quality of decisions to undertake the HPV vaccinations.
| S-EPMC3471042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentives are an effective way of helping women to stop smoking during pregnancy. Unfortunately, most women who stop smoking at this time return to smoking within 12 months of the infant's birth. There is no evidence for interventions that are effective at preventing postpartum smoking relapse. Financial incentives provided after the birth may help women to sustain cessation. This randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to help women who are abstinent from smoking at end-of-pregnancy to avoid return to smoking up to 12 months postpartum.MethodsThis is a UK-based, multi-centre, three-arm, superiority, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with 1:1:1 allocation. It will compare the effectiveness of two financial incentive interventions with each other (one intervention for up to 3 months postpartum offering up to £120 of incentives (£60 for the participant and £60 for a significant other support); the other for up to 12 months postpartum with up to £300 of incentives (£240 for the participant and £60 for a significant other support) and with a no incentives/usual care control group. Eligible women will be between 34 weeks gestation and 2 weeks postpartum, abstinent from smoking for at least 4 weeks, have an expired carbon monoxide (CO) reading < 4 parts per million (ppm), aged at least 16 years, intend remaining abstinent from smoking after the birth and able to speak and read English. The primary outcome is self-reported, lapse-free, smoking abstinence from the last quit attempt in pregnancy until 12 months postpartum, biochemically validated by expired CO and/or salivary cotinine or anabasine. Outcomes will be analysed by intention-to-treat and regression models used to compare the proportion of abstinent women between the two intervention groups and between each intervention group and the control group. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of offering incentives and a qualitative process evaluation will examine barriers and facilitators to trial retention, effectiveness and implementation.DiscussionThis pragmatic randomised controlled trial will test whether offering financial incentives is effective and cost-effective for helping women to avoid smoking relapse during the 12 months after the birth of their baby.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 55218215 . Registered retrospectively on 5th June 2019.
| S-EPMC8327045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of financial incentives dependent on continuous smoking abstinence on smoking cessation and birth outcomes among pregnant smokers.DesignSingle blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingFinancial Incentive for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy (FISCP) trial in 18 maternity wards in France.Participants460 pregnant smokers aged at least 18 years who smoked ≤5 cigarettes/day or ≤3 roll-your-own cigarettes/day and had a pregnancy gestation of <18 weeks were randomised to a financial incentives group (n=231) or a control group (n=229).InterventionsParticipants in the financial incentives group received a voucher equivalent to €20 (£17; $23), and further progressively increasing vouchers at each study visit if they remained abstinent. Participants in the control group received no financial incentive for abstinence. All participants received a €20 show-up fee at each of six visits.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was continuous smoking abstinence from the first post-quit date visit to visit 6, before delivery. Secondary outcomes in the mothers were point prevalence abstinence, time to smoking relapse, withdrawal symptoms, blood pressure, and alcohol and cannabis use in past 30 days. Secondary outcomes in the babies were gestational age at birth, birth characteristics (birth weight, length, head circumference, Apgar score), and a poor neonatal outcome-a composite measure of transfer to the neonatal unit, congenital malformation, convulsions, or perinatal death.ResultsMean age was 29 years. In the financial incentives and control groups, respectively, 137 (59%) and 148 (65%) were employed, 163 (71%) and 171 (75%) were in a relationship, and 41 (18%) and 31 (13%) were married. The participants had smoked a median of 60 cigarettes in the past seven days. The continuous abstinence rate was significantly higher in the financial incentives group (16%, 38/231) than control group (7%, 17/229): odds ratio 2.45 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 4.49), P=0.004). The point prevalence abstinence rate was higher (4.61, 1.41 to 15.01, P=0.011), the median time to relapse was longer (visit 5 (interquartile range 3-6) and visit 4 (3-6), P<0.001)), and craving for tobacco was lower (β=-1.81, 95% confidence interval -3.55 to -0.08, P=0.04) in the financial incentives group than control group. Financial incentives were associated with a 7% reduction in the risk of a poor neonatal outcome: 4 babies (2%) in the financial incentives group and 18 babies (9%) in the control group: mean difference 14 (95% confidence interval 5 to 23), P=0.003. Post hoc analyses suggested that more babies in the financial incentives group had birth weights ≥2500 g than in the control group: unadjusted odds ratio 1.95 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 3.85), P=0.055; sex adjusted odds ratio 2.05 (1.03 to 4.10), P=0.041; and sex and prematurity adjusted odds ratio 2.06 (0.90 to 4.71), P=0.086. As these are post hoc analyses, the results should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsFinancial incentives to reward smoking abstinence compared with no financial incentives were associated with an increased abstinence rate in pregnant smokers. Financial incentives dependent on smoking abstinence could be implemented as a safe and effective intervention to help pregnant smokers quit smoking.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02606227.
| S-EPMC8634365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Index case testing (ICT) to identify HIV-infected children is efficient but has suboptimal uptake. Financial incentives (FI) have overcome financial barriers in other populations by offsetting direct and indirect costs. A pilot study found FI to be feasible for motivating paediatric ICT among HIV-infected female caregivers. This randomised trial will determine the effectiveness of FI to increase uptake of paediatric ICT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Financial Incentives to Increase Uptake of Pediatric HIV Testing trial is a five-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial that determines whether FI increases timely uptake of paediatric ICT. The trial will be conducted in multiple public health facilities in western Kenya. Each HIV-infected adult enrolled in HIV care will be screened for eligibility: primary caregiver to one or more children of unknown HIV status aged 0-12 years. Eligible caregivers will be individually randomised at the time of recruitment in equal 1:1:1:1:1 allocation to one of five arms (US$0 (control), US$1.25, US$2.50, US$5.00 and US$10.00). The trial aims to randomise 800 caregivers. Incentives will be disbursed at the time of child HIV testing using mobile money transfer or cash. Arms will be compared in terms of the proportion of adults who complete testing for at least one child within 2 months of randomisation and time to testing. A cost-effectiveness analysis of FI for paediatric ICT will also be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board and the Kenyatta National Hospital Ethics and Research Committee. Trial results will be disseminated to healthcare workers at study sites, regional and national policymakers, and with patient populations at study sites (regardless of enrolment in the trial). Randomised trials of caregiver-child FI interventions pose unique study design, ethical and operational challenges, detailed here as a resource for future investigations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03049917; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6194484 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3949711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentives may aid recruitment to clinical trials, but evidence regarding risk/burden-driven variability in participant preferences for incentives is limited. We developed and tested a framework to support real-world decisions on recruitment budget.MethodsWe included two phases: an Anchoring Survey, to ensure we could capture perceived unpleasantness on a range of life events, and a Vignette Experiment, to explore relationships between financial incentives and participants' perceived risk/burden and willingness to participate in high- and low-risk/burden versions of five vignettes drawn from common research activities. We compared vignette ratings to identify similarly rated life events from the Anchoring Survey to contextualize ratings of study risk.ResultsIn our Anchoring Survey (n = 643), mean ratings (scale 1 = lowest risk/burden to 5 = highest risk/burden) indicated that the questions made sense to participants, with highest risk assigned to losing house in a fire (4.72), and lowest risk assigned to having blood pressure taken (1.13). In the Vignette Experiment (n = 534), logistic regression indicated that amount of offered financial incentive and perceived risk/burden level were the top two drivers of willingness to participate in four of the five vignettes. Comparison of event ratings in the Anchoring Survey with the Vignette Experiment ratings suggested reasonable concordance on severity of risk/burden.ConclusionsWe demonstrated feasibility of a framework for assessing participant perceptions of risk for study activities and discerned directionality of relationship between financial incentives and willingness to participate. Future work will explore use of this framework as an evidence-gathering approach for gauging appropriate incentives in real-world study contexts.
| S-EPMC8595781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To analyze patient perspectives of the use of financial incentives in a hypertension intervention. Study Setting. Twelve Veterans Affairs primary care clinics over a 9-month period.Qualitative semistructured interviews conducted with 54 hypertensive veterans participating in an intervention to promote guideline-consistent therapy. Intervention components included an intervention letter requesting patients talk with their providers, an offer of U.S.$20 to bring in the letter to their provider, and a health educator phone call.Semistructured interviews were conducted. Transcripts were coded for thematic content. The financial incentive theme was then subcoded for more detailed analysis.Most participants (n=48; 88.9 percent) stated the incentive had (or would have) no effect on their decision to initiate a discussion with their provider. Some participants articulated reservations about the effectiveness and/or appropriateness of financial incentives in health care decisions; however, a few expressed the opinion that there may be some potential benefits to the use of financial incentives if they encourage patients to be active in their health care.The findings of this study raise questions about the appropriateness and unintended consequences of employing patient-directed financial incentives in health care settings.
| S-EPMC3393021 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionAlcohol consumption is the seventh leading risk factor for disability-adjusted life years in the world, according to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. As the largest developing country, China has a substantial population of alcohol consumers who suffer from related health risks. Despite having made significant advancements in eradicating absolute poverty, many people still live in relative poverty, which suggests that the adverse health effects caused by alcohol consumption among vulnerable populations in China warrant more attention. This paper aims to provide an overview of alcohol consumption among ethnic populations in China and test the feasibility and efficacy of a brief advice intervention with a small financial incentive in reducing harmful drinking behaviours.MethodsThis study is a three-arm, single-blinded, pragmatic, individually randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 1,2 and 3 months after randomisation. A total of 440 daily drinkers living in Xichang will be recruited and divided into three groups: brief intervention group, financial incentive group and control group. All participants will receive a urine ethyl glucuronide (EtG) test, which detects alcohol consumption in the past 80 hours. Additionally, participants in the brief intervention group will receive three free counselling sessions alongside multimedia messages on the topic of alcohol consumption after each session. The participants in the financial incentive group will receive the same interventions as well as cash incentives according to the results of the EtG test. The primary outcomes are the self-reported drinking quantity, binge drinking frequency, drinking intensity and the proportion of participants who pass the EtG test.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Peking University Health Science Center Institutional Review Board (IRB00001052-20049). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international conferences to publicise and explain the research to key audiences.Trial registration numberNCT04999371.
| S-EPMC9119181 | biostudies-literature