↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability of financial incentives for health behaviour change to public health policymakers: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
34 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Acceptability of financial incentives for health behaviour change to public health policymakers: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3646-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma L. Giles, Falko F. Sniehotta, Elaine McColl, Jean Adams

Abstract

Providing financial incentives contingent on healthy behaviours is one way to encourage healthy behaviours. However, there remains substantial concerns with the acceptability of health promoting financial incentives (HPFI). Previous research has studied acceptability of HPFI to the public, recipients and practitioners. We are not aware of any previous work that has focused particularly on the views of public health policymakers. Our aim was to explore the views of public health policymakers on whether or not HPFI are acceptable; and what, if anything, could be done to maximise acceptability of HPFI. We recruited 21 local, regional and national policymakers working in England via gatekeepers and snowballing. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with participants exploring experiences of, and attitudes towards, HPFI. We analysed data using the Framework approach. Public health policymakers working in England acknowledged that HPFI could be a useful behaviour change tool, but were not overwhelmingly supportive of them. In particular, they raised concerns about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, potential 'gaming', and whether or not HPFI address the underlying causes of unhealthy behaviours. Shopping voucher rewards, of smaller value, targeted at deprived groups were particularly acceptable to policymakers. Participants were particularly concerned about the response of other stakeholders to HPFI - including the public, potential recipients, politicians and the media. Overall, the interviews reflected three tensions. Firstly, a tension between wanting to trust individuals and promote responsibility; and distrust around the potential for 'gaming the system'. Secondly, a tension between participants' own views about HPFI; and their concerns about the possible views of other stakeholders. Thirdly, a tension between participants' personal distaste of HPFI; and their professional view that they could be a valuable behaviour change tool. There are aspects of design that influence acceptability of financial incentive interventions to public health policymakers. However, it is not clear that even interventions designed to maximise acceptability would be acceptable enough to be recommended for implementation. Further work may be required to help policymakers understand the potential responses of other stakeholder groups to financial incentive interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 37 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Psychology 9 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 7%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 38 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,252,096
of 25,397,764 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,428
of 17,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,275
of 329,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#30
of 350 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,397,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 350 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.