↓ Skip to main content

The impact of financial incentives on physical activity in adults: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
The impact of financial incentives on physical activity in adults: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0687-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

My-Linh Nguyen Luong, Kim L. Bennell, Michelle Hall, Anthony Harris, Rana S. Hinman

Abstract

Most adults fail to meet global physical activity guidelines set out by the World Health Organization. In recent years, behavioural economic principles have been used to design novel interventions that increase physical activity. Immediate financial rewards, for instance, can motivate an individual to change physical activity behaviour by lowering the opportunity costs of exercise. This systematic review will summarise the evidence about the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions for improving physical activity in adults. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, EconLit, SPORTDiscus, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception using a comprehensive, electronic search strategy. The search strategy will include terms related to 'financial incentive' and 'physical activity'. Only randomised controlled trials that investigate the effect of financial incentives on physical activity in adult populations and that are written in the English language will be included. Two review authors will independently screen abstracts and titles, complete full text reviews and extract data on objective and self-reported physical activity outcomes. The authors will also assess the study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and provide a systematic presentation and synthesis of the included studies' characteristics and results. If more than two studies are sufficiently similar in population, settings and interventions, we will pool the data to conduct a meta-analysis. If we are unable to perform a meta-analysis, we will conduct a narrative synthesis of the results and produce forest plots for individual studies. Our subgroup analyses will examine the differential effects of an intervention in healthy populations compared to populations with disease pathology and compare the effects of interventions using financial rewards to interventions using financial penalties. This systematic review will determine the effectiveness of positive and negative financial incentives on physical activity in adults. Findings will help inform the development of public health interventions and research in this field. PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017068263.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 35 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Psychology 7 6%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 42 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 September 2019.
All research outputs
#13,384,962
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,402
of 2,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,813
of 442,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#47
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 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 2,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 442,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.