Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander. Guiding Principles for the Use of Financial Incentives in Health Behaviour Change

  • Published:
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The use of financial incentives or pay-for-performance programs for health care providers has triggered emerging interest in the use of financial incentives for encouraging health behaviour change.

Purpose

This paper aims to identify key conditions under which the use of financial incentives for improvements in public health outcomes is most likely to be effective and appropriate.

Methods

We review recent systematic reviews on their effectiveness in changing health behaviour and identify existing moral concerns concerning personal financial incentives.

Results

Current evidence indicates that incentives can be effective in driving health behaviour change under certain provisos, while a number of misgivings continue to be deliberated on. We outline a number of key principles for consideration in decisions about the potential use of incentives in leading to public health improvements.

Conclusion

These key principles can assist policy makers in making decisions on the use of financial incentives directed at achieving improvements in public health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Volpp KG, Pauly MV, Loewenstein G, Bangsberg D. P4P4P: an agenda for research on pay-for-performance for patients. Health Aff. 2009;28(1):206–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Petry NM. A comprehensive guide to the application of contingency management procedures in clinical settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;58:9–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney J, Greenwell L, Roll J. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2007;101:1546–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Greene J. Medicaid efforts to incentivize healthy behaviours. New Jersey: Center for Health Care Systems; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fernald L, Gertler P, Neufeld L. Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth and development: an analysis of Mexico’s Oportunidades. Lancet. 2008;371:828–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Report of the Expert Panel for the Children’ Fitness Tax Credit. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Finance Canada; 2006.

  7. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). Immunisation position paper. Melbourne, Vic.: RACGP; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gray M, Qu L, Weston R. Fertility and family policy in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian Instititute of Family Studies; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006;101(2):192–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. National Preventative Health Taskforce. Tobacco control in Australia: making smoking history; 2009.

  11. Marteau TM, Ashcroft RE, Oliver A. Using financial incentives to achieve healthy behaviour. BMJ. 2009;338:1415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cahill K, Perera R. Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2008(Issue 3).

  13. Leeks KD, Hopkins D, Soler R, Aten A, Chattopadhyay S. Worksite-based incentives and competitions to reduce tobacco use. A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010;38:S263–S74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jochelson K. Kicking bad habits. Paying the patient. Improving health using financial incentives. London, UK.: King’s Fund; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sutherland K, Leatherman S, Christianson J. Paying the patient: does it work? A review of patient-targeted incentives. London: QQUIP. Quest of Quality and Improved Performance. The Health Foundation; 2008.

  16. Scott A, Schurer S. Financial incentives, personal responsibility and prevention. Canberra: Discussion paper commissioned by the National Health and Hospitals Reform, Australian Government; 2008.

  17. Lagarde M, Haines A, Palner N. Conditional cash transfers for improving uptake of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries. JAMA. 2007;298(16):1900–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fiszbein A, Schady N. Conditional cash transfers. Reducing present and future poverty. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Paul-Ebhohimhen V, Avenell A. Systematic review of the use of financial incentives in treatments for obesity and overweight. Obesity Reviews. 2008;9:355–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Volpp KG, Troxel AB, Pauly MV, Glick HA, Puig A, Asch DA, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:699–709.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Heil S, Higgins S, Bernstein I, Soloman L, Rogers R, Thomas C, et al. Effects of voucher-based incentives on abstinence from cigarette smoking and feral growth among pregnant women. Addiction. 2008;103:1009–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Volpp KG, John L, Troxel A, Norton L, Fassbender J, Lowenstein G. Financial incentive-based approaches for weight loss. A randomised trial. JAMA. 2008;300:2631–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins S, Heil S, Soloman L, Plebani Lussier J, Abel R, Lynch M, et al. A pilot study on voucher-based incentives to promote abstinence from cigarette smoking during pregnancy and postpartum. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2004;6:1015–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Preston K, Umbricht A, Epstein D. Abstinence reinforcement maintenance contingency and one-year follow-up. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2002;67:125–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Roll J, Huber A, Sodano R, Chudzynski J, Moynier E, Shoptaw S. A comparison of five reinforcement schedules for use in contingency management-based treatment of methamphetamine abuse. The Psychological Record. 2006;56:67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Camberwell, Australia: Penguin Books; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Marteau TM, Oliver A, Ashcroft RE. Changing behaviour through state intervention. When does an acceptable nudge become an unacceptable shove? BMJ. 2009;338:121–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vlaev I, Dolan P. From changing cognitions to changing the context: a dual-route model of behaviour change/. London: Imperial College London Business School; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, King D, Vlaev I. MINDSPACE. Influencing behaviour through public policy. United Kingdom.: Institute for Government,; 2010; Available from: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

  31. Klein E, Karlawish J. Challenges and opportunities for developing and implementing incentives to improve health-related behaviours in older adults. Journal of American Geriatrics Society. 2010;58:1758–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1999;125:627–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Frey B, Jegen R. Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveillance. 2001;15:590–611.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ryan R, Deci E. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000;55:68–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee W, Reeve J, Xue Y, Xiong J. Similarities and differences in the neural activities of intrinsic motivation and incentive motivation. NeuroImage. 2009;47(Supplement 1):S39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McDonald R, Harrison S, Checkland K, Campbell S, Roland M. Impact on financial incentives on clinical autonomy and internal motivation in primary care: ethnographic study. BMJ. 2007;334(7608):1357–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dworkin G. Taking risks, assessing responsbility. The Hastings Center Report. 1981;11:26–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wikler D. Who should be blamed for being sick? Health Education Quarterly. 1987;14:11–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Long JA, Helweg-Larsen M, Volpp KG. Patient opinions regarding ‘pay for peformance for patients’. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1647–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lynagh M, Bonevski B, Symonds I, Sanson-Fisher RW. Paying pregnant women to quit smoking during pregnancy? Acceptability among pregnant women. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2011:(in press).

  41. Malotte CK, Rhodes F, Mais KE. Tuberculosis screening and compliance with return for skin test reading among active drug users. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:792–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ghitza U, Epstein D, Schmittner J, Vahabzadeh M, Lin JL, Preston K. Effect of reinforcement probabilty and prize size on cocaine and heroin abstinence in prize-based contingency management. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis. 2008;41:539–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Higgins S, Badger G, Budney A. Initial abstinence and success in achieving longer-term cocaine abstinence. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2000;8:377–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Petry N, Casarella T. Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1999;56:25–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, David Maddison Building, Cnr King & Watt Streets, Newcastle, NSW, 2300, Australia

    Marita C. Lynagh & Rob W. Sanson-Fisher

  2. Centre for Health Research & Psycho-oncology (CHeRP), University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2300, Australia

    Billie Bonevski

Authors
  1. Marita C. Lynagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rob W. Sanson-Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Billie Bonevski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marita C. Lynagh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lynagh, M.C., Sanson-Fisher, R.W. & Bonevski, B. What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander. Guiding Principles for the Use of Financial Incentives in Health Behaviour Change. Int.J. Behav. Med. 20, 114–120 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-011-9202-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-011-9202-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation