Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Acceptability of financial incentives to improve health outcomes in UK and US samples
  1. Marianne Promberger1,
  2. Rebecca C H Brown2,
  3. Richard E Ashcroft2,
  4. Theresa M Marteau1
  1. 1King's College London, London, UK
  2. 2Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Marianne Promberger, King's College London, Health Psychology, Fifth Floor Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK; marianne.promberger{at}


In an online study conducted separately in the UK and the US, participants rated the acceptability and fairness of four interventions: two types of financial incentives (rewards and penalties) and two types of medical interventions (pills and injections). These were stated to be equally effective in improving outcomes in five contexts: (a) weight loss and (b) smoking cessation programmes, and adherence in treatment programmes for (c) drug addiction, (d) serious mental illness and (e) physiotherapy after surgery. Financial incentives (weekly rewards and penalties) were judged less acceptable and to be less fair than medical interventions (weekly pill or injection) across all five contexts. Context moderated the relative preference between rewards and penalties: participants from both countries favoured rewards over penalties in weight loss and treatment for serious mental illness. Only among US participants was this relative preference moderated by perceived responsibility of the target group. Overall, participants supported funding more strongly for interventions when they judged members of the target group to be less responsible for their condition, and vice versa. These results reveal a striking similarity in negative attitudes towards the use of financial incentives, rewards as well as penalties, in improving outcomes across a range of contexts, in the UK and the USA. The basis for such negative attitudes awaits further study.

  • Allocation of health care resources
  • population policy
  • behaviour modification

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: and

Statistics from


  • Funding This study was funded as part of a strategic award from the Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics Programme (PI Marteau: 086031/Z/08/Z).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This research was carried out with approval from the King's College London ethics committee (PNM/09/10-89).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Other content recommended for you