IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0219112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Chronically ill patients’ preferences for a financial incentive in a lifestyle intervention. Results of a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Molema
  • Jorien Veldwijk
  • Wanda Wendel-Vos
  • Ardine de Wit
  • Ien van de Goor
  • Jantine Schuit

Abstract

Background: The preferences of diabetes type 2 patients and cardiovascular disease patients for a financial incentive added to a specified combined lifestyle intervention were investigated. Methods: A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was filled out by 290 diabetes type 2 patients (response rate 29.9%). Panel-mixed-logit models were used to estimate the preferences for a financial incentive. Potential uptake rates of different financial incentives and relative importance scores of the included attributes were estimated. Included attributes and levels were: form of the incentive (cash money and different types of vouchers), value of the incentive (ranging from 15 to 100 euros), moment the incentive is received (start, halfway, after finishing the intervention) and prerequisite for receiving the incentive (registration, attendance or results at group or individual level). Results: Prerequisites for receiving the financial incentive were the most important attribute, according to the respondents. Potential uptake rates for different financial incentives ranged between 37.9% and 58.8%. The latter uptake rate was associated with a financial incentive consisting of cash money with a value of €100 that is handed out after completing the lifestyle program with the prerequisite that the participant attended at least 75% of the scheduled meetings. Conclusions: The potential uptake of the different financial incentives varied between 37.9% and 58.8%. The value of the incentive does not significantly influence the potential uptake. However, the potential uptake and associated potential effect of the financial incentive is influenced by the type of financial incentive. The preferred type of incentive is €100 in cash money, awarded after completing the lifestyle program if the participant attended at least 75% of the scheduled meetings.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Molema & Jorien Veldwijk & Wanda Wendel-Vos & Ardine de Wit & Ien van de Goor & Jantine Schuit, 2019. "Chronically ill patients’ preferences for a financial incentive in a lifestyle intervention. Results of a discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219112
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219112
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219112&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0219112?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gneezy, Uri & Rustichini, Aldo, 2000. "A Fine is a Price," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    3. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Pérez-Troncoso & David M. Epstein & José A. Castañeda-García, 2021. "Consumers' Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Personalised Nutrition," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 757-767, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    4. Plaxcedes Chiwire & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. Evers & Hassan Mahomed & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2022. "Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, January.
    5. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    6. Vo, Linh K. & Allen, Michelle J. & Cunich, Michelle & Thillainadesan, Janani & McPhail, Steven M. & Sharma, Pakhi & Wallis, Shannon & McGowan, Kelly & Carter, Hannah E., 2024. "Stakeholders’ preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    7. Angell, Blake & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Roy, Pallavi & Nwokolo, Chukwudi & McKee, Martin & Mandeville, Kate & Obodoechi, Divine & Agwu, Prince & Odii, Aloysius & Orjiakor, Charles & Hutchinson, Eleanor & , 2023. "Designing feasible anti-corruption strategies in the Nigerian health system: A latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    8. He, Chenyi & Gao, Zhifeng, 2015. "Do picture labels give better idea to customers? A comparison of picture labels to traditional text describe labels in choice experiments," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205819, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Wang, Sophie Y. & Cantarelli, Paola & Groene, Oliver & Stargardt, Tom & Belle, Nicola, 2023. "Patient expectations do matter - Experimental evidence on antibiotic prescribing decisions among hospital-based physicians," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 11-17.
    10. Spinks, Jean & Mortimer, Duncan, 2015. "The effect of traffic lights and regulatory statements on the choice between complementary and conventional medicines in Australia: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 257-265.
    11. Sivey, Peter & Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia & Joyce, Catherine & Humphreys, John, 2012. "Junior doctors’ preferences for specialty choice," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 813-823.
    12. McDonnell, Thérèse & Nicholson, Emma & Bury, Gerard & Collins, Claire & Conlon, Ciara & De Brún, Aoife & Doherty, Edel & McAuliffe, Eilish, 2023. "The role of contextual factors in decision-making by General Practitioners on paediatric referral to the Emergency Department in Ireland: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    13. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    14. Que, Sisi & Awuah-Offei, Kwame & Weidner, Nathan & Wang, Yumin, 2017. "Discrete choice experiment validation: A resource project case study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 39-50.
    15. Erping Jia & Yuanyuan Gu & Yingying Peng & Xianglin Li & Xiao Shen & Mingzhu Jiang & Juyang Xiong, 2020. "Preferences of Patients with Non-Communicable Diseases for Primary Healthcare Facilities: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Blanco, M. & Dalton, P.S. & Vargas, J.F., 2013. "Does the Unemployement Benefit Institution Affect the Productivity of Workers? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Other publications TiSEM ba37e033-06ab-4fc3-b56e-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    19. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    20. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.