Parts greater than their sum: randomized controlled trial testing partitioned incentives to increase cancer screening
Abstract
Promoting healthy behavior is a challenge for public health officials, especially in the context of asking patients to participate in preventive cancer screenings. Small financial incentives are sometimes used, but there is a little scientific basis to support a compelling description of the best‐practice implementation of such incentives. We present a simple behavioral strategy based on mental accounting from prospect theory that maximizes the impact of incentives with no additional cost. We show how the partition of one incentive into two smaller incentives of equivalent total amount produces substantial behavioral changes, demonstrated in the context of colorectal cancer screening. In a randomized controlled trial, eligible patients aged 50−74 (n = 1652 patients) were allocated to receive either one €10 incentive (upon completion of screening) or two €5 incentives (at the beginning and at the end of screening). We show that cancer screening rates were dramatically increased by partitioning the financial incentive (61.1%), compared with a single installment at the end (41.4%). These results support the hedonic editing hypothesis from prospect theory, and underline the importance of implementing theoretically grounded healthcare interventions. Our results suggest that, when patient incentives are feasible, healthcare procedures should be framed as multistage events with smaller incentives offered at multiple points in time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Portuguese incentive study had no non-incentive group.
“However, this study had no non-incentive group.”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [61]
In Portugal, portioning a small 10-euro incentive into two small 5-euro incentives increased CRC screening.
“In Portugal, portioning a small 10-euro incentive into two small 5-euro incentives increased CRC screening [61].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [61]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 90 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., & Schumpe, B. M.
- Affiliations
- New York University Abu Dhabi (AE)
- Corresponding author
- Nisa, Claudia F.
- Venue
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-05-20
- Volume
- 1449
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-55
- ISSN
- 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6632
- OpenAlex
- W2944885212
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (086031/Z/08/Z)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Keywords
- financial incentives, cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, mental accounting, prospect theory, behavioral economics, preventive health behavior, screening uptake
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Motivation, Public Health, Reward, Colorectal Neoplasms, Health Behavior, Early Detection of Cancer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review