The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis.
The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0090347
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Adams J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Giles EL;Robalino S;McColl E;Sniehotta FF;Adams J
有人建议将财政激励干预作为促进健康行为改变的一种方法。对鼓励健康行为改变的财务激励干预措施的有效性进行系统审查；探索效果是否因激励的行为类型、干预后的后续时间或激励价值而异。检索了相关的电子数据库、研究登记册、www.google.com和以前审查的参考清单；并要求向相关的邮寄名单发送信息。与不干预或常规护理相比，对生活在高收入国家的非临床成人人口中鼓励健康行为改变的财政激励干预措施的有效性进行了受控评估。使用Cochrane偏差风险工具对所有纳入的研究进行评估。Meta分析被用来探索财务激励干预在行为相似的群体中和总体上的效果。Meta回归用于确定效果是否因干预后的随访时间或激励价值而不同。共纳入17篇论文，涉及戒烟(n = 10)、接种疫苗或筛查(n = 5)和体力活动(n = 1)等16项研究。在Meta分析中，短期(≤6个月)戒烟(相对风险(95%可信区间)：2.48(1.77-3.46)；长期(->6个月)戒烟(1.5(1.05-2.14))；接种疫苗或筛查(1.92(1.46-2.53))；以及所有行为合计(1.62(1.38-1.91))的激励干预的平均效果大于对照。没有令人信服的证据表明不同的行为群体之间的影响是不同的。Meta回归发现了一些有限的证据，表明效果大小随着干预后随访期和激励价值的增加而减少。然而，后一种影响可能会被前一种影响混淆。现有证据表明，财政激励干预比通常的护理或不干预更有效，以鼓励健康行为的改变。PROSPERO CRD42012002393
Financial incentive interventions have been suggested as one method of promoting healthy behaviour change. To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions for encouraging healthy behaviour change; to explore whether effects vary according to the type of behaviour incentivised, post-intervention follow-up time, or incentive value. Searches were of relevant electronic databases, research registers, www.google.com, and the reference lists of previous reviews; and requests for information sent to relevant mailing lists. Controlled evaluations of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions, compared to no intervention or usual care, to encourage healthy behaviour change, in non-clinical adult populations, living in high-income countries, were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess all included studies. Meta-analysis was used to explore the effect of financial incentive interventions within groups of similar behaviours and overall. Meta-regression was used to determine if effect varied according to post-intervention follow up time, or incentive value. Seventeen papers reporting on 16 studies on smoking cessation (n = 10), attendance for vaccination or screening (n = 5), and physical activity (n = 1) were included. In meta-analyses, the average effect of incentive interventions was greater than control for short-term (≤six months) smoking cessation (relative risk (95% confidence intervals): 2.48 (1.77 to 3.46); long-term (>six months) smoking cessation (1.50 (1.05 to 2.14)); attendance for vaccination or screening (1.92 (1.46 to 2.53)); and for all behaviours combined (1.62 (1.38 to 1.91)). There was not convincing evidence that effects were different between different groups of behaviours. Meta-regression found some, limited, evidence that effect sizes decreased as post-intervention follow-up period and incentive value increased. However, the latter effect may be confounded by the former. The available evidence suggests that financial incentive interventions are more effective than usual care or no intervention for encouraging healthy behaviour change. PROSPERO CRD42012002393
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Abraham, Charles;Michie, Susan
通讯作者：
Michie, Susan
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.a589
发表时间：
2008-07-08
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Cookson, Richard
通讯作者：
Cookson, Richard
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-842x.1999.tb01257.x
发表时间：
1999-06-01
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Achat, H;McIntyre, P;Burgess, M
通讯作者：
Burgess, M
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Finkelstein, Eric A.;Brown, Derek S.;Buchner, David M.
通讯作者：
Buchner, David M.
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Crockett RA;Weinman J;Hankins M;Marteau T
通讯作者：
Marteau T