↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Incentivizing health care behaviors in emerging adults: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Incentivizing health care behaviors in emerging adults: a systematic review
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s102574
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine H Yu, Giuliana Guarna, Pamela Tsao, Jude R Jesuthasan, Adrian NC Lau, Ferhan S Siddiqi, Julie Anne Gilmour, Danyal Ladha, Henry Halapy, Andrew Advani

Abstract

For emerging adults with chronic medical diseases, the transition from pediatric to adult health care is often a time of great upheaval, commonly associated with unhealthy self-management choices, loss to follow-up, and adverse outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to examine the use of incentive strategies to promote positive health-related behaviors in young adults with chronic medical diseases. The Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases were searched through June 2014. Studies of any design where an incentive was used to achieve a target behavior or outcome in a pediatric or emerging adult population (age <30 years) with chronic medical conditions including addictions, were included. A total of 26 studies comprising 10,880 patients met our inclusion criteria after screening 10,305 abstracts and 301 full-text articles. Of these studies, 20 examined the effects of behavioral incentives on cigarette smoking or substance abuse, including alcohol; four studies explored behavioral incentives in the setting of HIV or sexual health; and two articles studied individuals with other chronic medical conditions. Seventeen articles reported a statistically significant benefit of the behavioral incentive on one or more outcomes, although only half reported follow-up after the incentive period was terminated. While the majority of studies reported positive outcomes, these studies focused on promoting the cessation of adverse behaviors rather than promoting positive behaviors. In addition, conclusions were limited by the high risk of bias present in the majority of studies, as well as lack of follow-up after the incentive period. Whether behavioral incentives facilitate the adoption of positive health choices in this population remains to be determined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 5 9%
Lecturer 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 18 31%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Psychology 7 12%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 16 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 April 2022.
All research outputs
#15,305,492
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#805
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,019
of 313,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#33
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 313,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.