CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 470Behavioral Health and InterventionsSmoking Behavior and CessationDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviour Change: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Giles, Emma L., Robalino, Shannon, McColl, Elaine, Sniehotta, Falko F., Adams, Jean·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0090347PMC PMC3949711
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive interventions have been suggested as one method of promoting healthy behaviour change. OBJECTIVES: To 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 SOURCES: Searches 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 CRITERIA: Controlled 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 SYNTHESIS: The 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. RESULTS: Seventeen 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. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that financial incentive interventions are more effective than usual care or no intervention for encouraging healthy behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012002393.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0090347

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flow diagram of study selection and exclusion.
Figure 1 Flow diagram of study selection and exclusion.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Risk of bias in included studies.
Figure 2 Risk of bias in included studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for smoking cessation (follow-up ≤six months).
Figure 3 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for smoking cessation (follow-up ≤six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Meta-regression of follow-up period on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up <six months).
Figure 4 Meta-regression of follow-up period on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up <six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up up <six months).
Figure 5 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up up <six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for smoking cessation (follow-up >six months).
Figure 6 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for smoking cessation (follow-up >six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Meta-regression of follow-up period on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up >six months).
Figure 7 Meta-regression of follow-up period on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up >six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up of >six months).
Figure 8 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, smoking cessation (follow-up of >six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Contour enhanced funnel plot, smoking cessation (follow-up ≤six months).
Figure 9 Contour enhanced funnel plot, smoking cessation (follow-up ≤six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Contour enhanced funnel plot, smoking cessation (follow-up >six months).
Figure 10 Contour enhanced funnel plot, smoking cessation (follow-up >six months).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 11 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for attendance at vaccination and screening.
Figure 11 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for attendance at vaccination and screening.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 12 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, attendance at vaccination & screening.
Figure 12 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, attendance at vaccination & screening.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 13 Contour enhanced funnel plot, attendance at vaccination and screening.
Figure 13 Contour enhanced funnel plot, attendance at vaccination and screening.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 14 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for all behaviours (latest follow-up point).
Figure 14 Meta-analysis of financial incentives for all behaviours (latest follow-up point).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 15 Meta-regression of follow-up point on relative risk, all behaviours (latest follow-up point).
Figure 15 Meta-regression of follow-up point on relative risk, all behaviours (latest follow-up point).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 16 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, all behaviours (latest follow-up point).
Figure 16 Meta-regression of incentive value on relative risk, all behaviours (latest follow-up point).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 17 Contour enhanced funnel plot, all behaviours (latest follow-up point).
Figure 17 Contour enhanced funnel plot, all behaviours (latest follow-up point).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 88 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kavanagh J, Stansfield C, Thomas J (2009) Incentives to improve smoking, physical activity, dietary and weight management behaviours: a scoping review of the research evidence. London: Institute of Education.
  2. A Oliver, 2009, Can financial carrots improve health?, J Health Serv Res Policy, 14, 1, 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008132 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Giles, E. L., Robalino, S., McColl, E., Sniehotta, F. F., & Adams, J.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Giles, Emma L.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-03-11
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
e90347
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0090347
PMC
PMC3949711
OpenAlex
W2001401696
Cited by
470
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 5
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CDF-2011-04-001)
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K02325X/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
financial incentives, behavior change, smoking cessation, vaccine uptake, screening uptake, physical activity, incentive value, follow-up duration, non-clinical adults, health promotion
MeSH terms
Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Motivation, Motor Activity, Registries, Risk, Health Behavior, Odds Ratio, Databases, Factual, Smoking Cessation

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