↓ Skip to main content

Ethical acceptability of offering financial incentives for taking antipsychotic depot medication: patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives after a 12-month randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, August 2017
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
54 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ethical acceptability of offering financial incentives for taking antipsychotic depot medication: patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives after a 12-month randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1485-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ernst L. Noordraven, Maartje H. N. Schermer, Peter Blanken, Cornelis L. Mulder, André I. Wierdsma

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial 'Money for Medication'(M4M) was conducted in which patients were offered financial incentives for taking antipsychotic depot medication. This study assessed the attitudes and ethical considerations of patients and clinicians who participated in this trial. Three mental healthcare institutions in secondary psychiatric care in the Netherlands participated in this study. Patients (n = 169), 18-65 years, diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or another psychotic disorder who had been prescribed antipsychotic depot medication, were randomly assigned to receive 12 months of either treatment as usual plus a financial reward for each depot of medication received (intervention group) or treatment as usual alone (control group). Structured questionnaires were administered after the 12-month intervention period. Data were available for 133 patients (69 control and 64 intervention) and for 97 clinicians. Patients (88%) and clinicians (81%) indicated that financial incentives were a good approach to improve medication adherence. Ethical concerns were categorized according to the four-principles approach (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice). Patients and clinicians alike mentioned various advantages of M4M in clinical practice, such as increased medication adherence and improved illness insight; but also disadvantages such as reduced intrinsic motivation, loss of autonomy and feelings of dependence. Overall, patients evaluated financial incentives as an effective method of improving medication adherence and were willing to accept this reward during clinical treatment. Clinicians were also positive about the use of this intervention in daily practice. Ethical concerns are discussed in terms of patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. We conclude that this intervention is ethically acceptable under certain conditions, and that further research is necessary to clarify issues of benefit, motivation and the preferred size and duration of the incentive. Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2350 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 26 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 24 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,158,258
of 25,393,455 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#337
of 5,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,842
of 320,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#14
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,455 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 5,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 320,315 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.