Earlier this year, research firm Mintel revealed that 30 per cent of people in the UK admit to rarely or never taking part in sport or exercise. In the survey, 24 per cent of Brits said they struggled to motivate themselves to exercise on their own, while the top reason for not using a leisure centre or swimming pool was cost. However, another piece of research – this time by Newcastle University in the UK – has suggested that things could change if people were offered a financial reward.
The university focused on 16 previous studies in which people had been given incentives to improve their health in some way, such as by taking up physical activity, quitting smoking or attending vaccination/disease screening sessions. The studies involved a total of more than 30,000 participants, and the university says its research is the broadest look to date at the impact of incentives.
Money motivation
The research, published in the journal PLOS ONE*, was funded by the National Institute of Health Research with a view to finding out how the NHS might save money in the long run.
Overall, financial incentives ranged from £3 (US$5.16) for having a flu vaccination to £467 (US$786) for taking part in an employee scheme to give up smoking for a year. Yet the team found that even in the flu vaccination study, where the reward was just £3, people were 50 per cent more likely to change their behaviour. In fact, it discovered that larger incentives were no more effective than smaller monetary rewards in influencing people’s behaviour.
Financial penalties for not succeeding in the task were also found to work. In these studies, participants had to hand over a set amount of money which they knew they wouldn’t get back if they didn’t fulfil the health behaviour requirements.
Surprise findings
Dr Emma Giles, a research associate at Newcastle University and lead author, comments: “This was an interesting finding and we were surprised at just how strong the effect was. People who took part in these reward or penalty schemes were much more likely to adopt healthy behaviours, and if they continued, they would have more chance of remaining healthy for longer.”
She adds: “Many studies used vouchers for supermarkets or similar things rather than actual cash. This might be a more acceptable way of implementing this.”
Dr Jean Adams, a senior lecturer in public health at Newcastle University, comments: “We were surprised how few studies we found which had looked at the impact financial incentives can have. But at this stage, we don’t know the right level that incentives should be at, so it’s not clear if this sort of scheme would save the NHS and country money.”
In addition, the team says it’s not clear whether the effect continues in the long term, after the rewards have stopped. It’s also not clear from the current research whether there’s a bigger impact in certain socioeconomic groups. Both of these areas were highlighted as possible variables to investigate further.
But as Adams concludes: “We try all kinds of techniques to try to help people quit smoking or otherwise live healthy lives, so why not try this? It’s about nudging people into healthier behaviours. There’s a chance this could save the taxpayer money in the long run.”
*Giles, E, et al. The Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviour Change: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE. March 2014
