↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: focus groups

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% 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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Acceptability of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: focus groups
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1409-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

BackgroundThere is evidence that financial incentive interventions, which include both financial rewards and also penalties, are effective in encouraging healthy behaviours. However, concerns about the acceptability of such interventions remain. We report on focus groups with a cross-section of adults from North East England exploring their acceptance of financial incentive interventions for encouraging healthy behaviours amongst adults. Such information should help guide the design and development of acceptable, and effective, financial incentive interventions.MethodsEight focus groups with a total of 74 adults were conducted between November 2013 and January 2014 in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Focus groups lasted approximately 60 minutes and explored factors that made financial incentives acceptable and unacceptable to participants, together with discussions on preferred formats for financial incentives. Verbatim transcripts were thematically coded and analysed in Nvivo 10.ResultsParticipants largely distrusted health promoting financial incentives, with a concern that individuals may abuse such schemes. There was, however, evidence that health promoting financial incentives may be more acceptable if they are fair to all recipients and members of the public; if they are closely monitored and evaluated; if they are shown to be effective and cost-effective; and if clear health education is provided alongside health promoting financial incentives. There was also a preference for positive rewards rather than negative penalties, and for shopping vouchers rather than cash incentives.ConclusionsThis qualitative empirical research has highlighted clear suggestions on how to design health promoting financial incentives to maximise acceptability to the general public. It will also be important to determine the acceptability of health promoting financial incentives in a range of stakeholders, and in particular, those who fund such schemes, and policy-makers who are likely to be involved with the design, implementation and evaluation of health promoting financial incentive schemes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 32 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,683,926
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,941
of 17,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,776
of 363,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#34
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 363,691 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 227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.