| Title |
A systematic review of financial incentives given in the healthcare setting; do they effectively improve physical activity levels?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13102-016-0041-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia C. M. Molema, G. C. Wanda Wendel-Vos, Lisanne Puijk, Jørgen Dejgaard Jensen, A. Jantine Schuit, G. Ardine de Wit |
| Abstract |
According to current physical activity guidelines, a substantial percentage of the population in high-income countries is inactive, and inactivity is an important risk factor for chronic conditions and mortality. Financial incentives may encourage people to become more active. The objective of this review was to provide insight in the effectiveness of financial incentives used for promoting physical activity in the healthcare setting. A systematic literature search was performed in three databases: Medline, EMBASE and SciSearch. In total, 1395 papers published up until April 2015 were identified. Eleven of them were screened on in- and exclusion criteria based on the full-text publication. Three studies were included in the review. Two studies combined a financial incentive with nutrition classes or motivational interviewing. One of these provided a free membership to a sports facility and the other one provided vouchers for one episode of aerobic activities at a local leisure center or swimming pool. The third study provided a schedule for exercise sessions. None of the studies addressed the preferences of their target population with regard to financial incentives. Despite some short-term effects, neither of the studies showed significant long-term effects of the financial incentive. Based on the limited number of studies and the diversity in findings, no solid conclusion can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of financial incentives on physical activity in the healthcare setting. Therefore, there is a need for more research on the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing physical activity behavior in this setting. There is possibly something to be gained by studying the preferred type and size of the financial incentive. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 20% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Librarian | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 32 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,112,375
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#255
of 500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,829
of 339,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 339,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.