‘Will walk for groceries’: Acceptability of financial health incentives among Canadian cardiac rehabilitation patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial health incentives, such as paying people to exercise, remain controversial despite widespread implementation. This focus group study explored the acceptability of incentives among a sample of Canadian cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients (n = 15). Focus groups were conducted between March and April 2013 until further sampling ceased to produce new analytical concepts. A thematic analysis approach was adopted in analysing the data. Three broad themes emerged from the focus groups. First, ethical concerns were prominent. Half of participants disagreed with the incentive approach believing that it was unfair, unnecessary or a waste of limited resources. Second, ethical concerns were mitigated in considering a range of incentive features including type, size and source. Specifically, privately sponsored (not government funded) health-promoting voucher-based incentives (e.g., grocery or gym vouchers) were perceived to be highly acceptable. Third, if designed like this, then financial incentives were considered potentially effective in motivating behaviour change and in reducing economic barriers to exercise participation. Overall, the majority of participants welcomed incentives if ethical concerns were addressed through thoughtful incentive programme design. The results of this focus group study will inform the design of a financial health incentive feasibility RCT to promote post-CR programme exercise compliance in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".