Incentivizing health care behaviors in emerging adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".