"For me, it is for longevity and making sure I am fit and around for my children": exploring motivations and barriers for weight management among minoritised communities in Medway, England.

BACKGROUND: Migration-related changes in dietary patterns and other structural and individual factors affect weight-related health practices of individuals migrating from low-and-middle-income to high-income countries. Thus, individuals of ethnically diverse backgrounds may be disproportionately affected by poorer health outcomes, including weight-related health issues. Understanding how this community could be supported to adopt weight-related healthy practices such as optimum dietary and exercise behaviour is an important issue for public health research. Against this backdrop, we explored structural and individual factors that facilitate and constrain the uptake of weight management services among members of minority ethnic communities in Medway, England. METHODS: Data were collected from audio-recorded interviews with 12 adult community members from minoritised ethnic communities using a semi-structured interview guide. Participants were recruited through a purposive and convenient sampling technique. Generated data were transcribed, coded into NVivo and analysed using the reflexive thematic analytical technique. RESULTS: Results showed that social support and health benefits of weight management were the main motivating factors for weight management among the study participants. Conversely, systemic barriers, family commitment and caring responsibilities, changes in dietary patterns post-migration and cultural norms were major factors constraining participants from adopting weight management behaviours. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that structural and person-level factors serve as both facilitators and barriers to weight management among ethnically diverse communities in Medway, England. While our study is exploratory and opens doors for more studies among the population, we conclude that these minoritised communities could benefit from more equitable, tailored weight management programmes to support them in adopting weight-related practices.

Exploring the factors affecting the implementation of tobacco and substance use interventions within a secondary school setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this mixed-methods, systematic literature review was to develop an understanding of the factors affecting the implementation of tobacco and substance use intervention programmes in the secondary school setting using NPT as an analytical framework. METHODS: A search strategy was developed that combined implementation, school and intervention search terms. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycHINFO, Scopus, ERIC, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. PROSPERO was also searched for similar systematic reviews and a grey literature search of policy documents and relevant material was also conducted. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they were based in a secondary school and focused on the implementation of a tobacco or substance use programme. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were considered for inclusion. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework to identify facilitators and barriers of implementation and to structure the synthesis. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 15 papers. The included papers were both quantitative and qualitative and focused on a range of tobacco and substance use interventions, delivered by differing providers. Key facilitating factors for implementation were positive organisational climate, adequate training and teacher's and pupil's motivation. Barriers to implementation included heavy workloads, budget cuts and lack of resources or support. Quality appraisal identified papers to be of moderate to weak quality, as papers generally lacked detail. CONCLUSION: NPT highlighted the need for studies to extend their focus to include reflexive monitoring around appraisal and the evaluation processes of implementing new tobacco or substance use programs. Future research should also focus on employing implementation theory as a tool to facilitate bridging the gap between school health research and practice.

Multicentre individual randomised controlled trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention to prevent risky drinking in young people aged 14-15 in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Drinking has adverse impacts on health, well-being, education and social outcomes for adolescents. Adolescents in England are among the heaviest drinkers in Europe. Recently, the proportion of adolescents who drink alcohol has fallen, although consumption among those who do drink has actually increased. This trial seeks to investigate how effective and efficient an alcohol brief intervention is with 11-15 years olds to encourage lower alcohol consumption. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an individually randomised two-armed trial incorporating a control arm of usual school-based practice and a leaflet on a healthy lifestyle (excl. alcohol), and an intervention arm that combines usual practice with a 30 min brief intervention delivered by school learning mentors and a leaflet on alcohol. At least 30 schools will be recruited from four regions in England (North East, North West, London, Kent and Medway) to follow-up 235 per arm. The primary outcome is total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days, using the 28 day Timeline Follow Back questionnaire measured at the 12-month follow-up. The analysis of the intervention will consider effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative study will explore, via 1:1 in-depth interviews with (n=80) parents, young people and school staff, intervention experience, intervention fidelity and acceptability issues, using thematic narrative synthesis to report qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Teesside University. Dissemination plans include academic publications, conference presentations, disseminating to local and national education departments and the wider public health community, including via Fuse, and engaging with school staff and young people to comment on whether and how the project can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION TRIAL: ISRCTN45691494; Pre-results.

Acceptability of financial incentives for health behaviour change to public health policymakers: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Providing financial incentives contingent on healthy behaviours is one way to encourage healthy behaviours. However, there remains substantial concerns with the acceptability of health promoting financial incentives (HPFI). Previous research has studied acceptability of HPFI to the public, recipients and practitioners. We are not aware of any previous work that has focused particularly on the views of public health policymakers. Our aim was to explore the views of public health policymakers on whether or not HPFI are acceptable; and what, if anything, could be done to maximise acceptability of HPFI. METHODS: We recruited 21 local, regional and national policymakers working in England via gatekeepers and snowballing. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with participants exploring experiences of, and attitudes towards, HPFI. We analysed data using the Framework approach. RESULTS: Public health policymakers working in England acknowledged that HPFI could be a useful behaviour change tool, but were not overwhelmingly supportive of them. In particular, they raised concerns about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, potential 'gaming', and whether or not HPFI address the underlying causes of unhealthy behaviours. Shopping voucher rewards, of smaller value, targeted at deprived groups were particularly acceptable to policymakers. Participants were particularly concerned about the response of other stakeholders to HPFI - including the public, potential recipients, politicians and the media. Overall, the interviews reflected three tensions. Firstly, a tension between wanting to trust individuals and promote responsibility; and distrust around the potential for 'gaming the system'. Secondly, a tension between participants' own views about HPFI; and their concerns about the possible views of other stakeholders. Thirdly, a tension between participants' personal distaste of HPFI; and their professional view that they could be a valuable behaviour change tool. CONCLUSIONS: There are aspects of design that influence acceptability of financial incentive interventions to public health policymakers. However, it is not clear that even interventions designed to maximise acceptability would be acceptable enough to be recommended for implementation. Further work may be required to help policymakers understand the potential responses of other stakeholder groups to financial incentive interventions.

Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Healthy behaviours are important determinants of health and disease, but many people find it difficult to perform these behaviours. Systematic reviews support the use of personal financial incentives to encourage healthy behaviours. There is concern that financial incentives may be unacceptable to the public, those delivering services and policymakers, but this has been poorly studied. Without widespread acceptability, financial incentives are unlikely to be widely implemented. We sought to answer two questions: what are the relative preferences of UK adults for attributes of financial incentives for healthy behaviours? Do preferences vary according to the respondents' socio-demographic characteristics? METHODS: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment. Participants were adult members of a market research panel living in the UK selected using quota sampling. Preferences were examined for financial incentives for: smoking cessation, regular physical activity, attendance for vaccination, and attendance for screening. Attributes of interest (and their levels) were: type of incentive (none, cash, shopping vouchers or lottery tickets); value of incentive (a continuous variable); schedule of incentive (same value each week, or value increases as behaviour change is sustained); other information provided (none, written information, face-to-face discussion, or both); and recipients (all eligible individuals, people living in low-income households, or pregnant women). RESULTS: Cash or shopping voucher incentives were preferred as much as, or more than, no incentive in all cases. Lower value incentives and those offered to all eligible individuals were preferred. Preferences for additional information provided alongside incentives varied between behaviours. Younger participants and men were more likely to prefer incentives. There were no clear differences in preference according to educational attainment. CONCLUSIONS: Cash or shopping voucher-type financial incentives for healthy behaviours are not necessarily less acceptable than no incentives to UK adults.

Acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding: thematic analysis of readers' comments to UK online news reports.

BACKGROUND: Whilst it is recommended that babies are breastfed exclusively for the first six months, many mothers do not maintain breastfeeding for this length of time. Previous research confirms that women and midwives value financial incentives for breastfeeding, but limited research has explored the wider acceptability of these interventions to the general public. This paper examines opinion towards financial incentives for breastfeeding using reader responses to UK on-line media coverage of a study undertaken in this area. METHODS: This study used netnography to undertake a thematic analysis of 3,373 reader comments posted in response to thirteen articles, published in November 2013, which reported findings from a feasibility study of financial incentives for breastfeeding. All articles were published on one of six UK news websites that achieved a monthly audience of at least five million viewers across laptop and desktop computers and mobile devices during April-May 2013. RESULTS: Nine analytical themes were identified, with a majority view that financial incentives for breastfeeding are unacceptable. These themes cover a range of opinions: from negligent parents unable to take responsibility for their own actions; through to psychologically vulnerable members of society who should be protected from coercion and manipulation; to capable and responsible women who can, and should be allowed to, make their own decisions. Many views focused on the immediate costs of the intervention, concluding that this was something that was currently unaffordable to fund (e.g. by the NHS). Others contrasted the value of the incentive against other 'costs' of breastfeeding. There was some consideration of the issue of cost-effectiveness and cost-saving, where the potential future benefit from initial investment was identified. Many commenters identified that financial incentives do not address the many structural and cultural barriers to breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, those commenting on the on-line UK news articles viewed financial incentives for breastfeeding as unacceptable and that alternative, structural, interventions were likely to be more effective. Further consideration of how best to conduct internet-based qualitative research to elicit opinion towards public health issues is required.

Acceptability of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: focus groups.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that financial incentive interventions, which include both financial rewards and also penalties, are effective in encouraging healthy behaviours. However, concerns about the acceptability of such interventions remain. We report on focus groups with a cross-section of adults from North East England exploring their acceptance of financial incentive interventions for encouraging healthy behaviours amongst adults. Such information should help guide the design and development of acceptable, and effective, financial incentive interventions. METHODS: Eight focus groups with a total of 74 adults were conducted between November 2013 and January 2014 in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Focus groups lasted approximately 60 minutes and explored factors that made financial incentives acceptable and unacceptable to participants, together with discussions on preferred formats for financial incentives. Verbatim transcripts were thematically coded and analysed in Nvivo 10. RESULTS: Participants largely distrusted health promoting financial incentives, with a concern that individuals may abuse such schemes. There was, however, evidence that health promoting financial incentives may be more acceptable if they are fair to all recipients and members of the public; if they are closely monitored and evaluated; if they are shown to be effective and cost-effective; and if clear health education is provided alongside health promoting financial incentives. There was also a preference for positive rewards rather than negative penalties, and for shopping vouchers rather than cash incentives. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative empirical research has highlighted clear suggestions on how to design health promoting financial incentives to maximise acceptability to the general public. It will also be important to determine the acceptability of health promoting financial incentives in a range of stakeholders, and in particular, those who fund such schemes, and policy-makers who are likely to be involved with the design, implementation and evaluation of health promoting financial incentive schemes.

Acceptability of financial incentives for encouraging uptake of healthy behaviours: A critical review using systematic methods.

OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives are effective in encouraging healthy behaviours, yet concerns about acceptability remain. We conducted a systematic review exploring acceptability of financial incentives for encouraging healthy behaviours. METHODS: Database, reference, and citation searches were conducted from the earliest available date to October 2014, to identify empirical studies and scholarly writing that: had an English language title, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and explored acceptability of financial incentives for healthy behaviours in members of the public, potential recipients, potential practitioners or policy makers. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighty one papers were included: 59 pieces of scholarly writing and 22 empirical studies, primarily exploring acceptability to the public. Five themes were identified: fair exchange, design and delivery, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, recipients, and impact on individuals and wider society. Although there was consensus that if financial incentives are effective and cost effective they are likely to be considered acceptable, a number of other factors also influenced acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives tend to be acceptable to the public when they are effective and cost-effective. Programmes that benefit recipients and wider society; are considered fair; and are delivered to individuals deemed appropriate are likely to be considered more acceptable.

Carrots, sticks and health behaviours: a framework for documenting the complexity of financial incentive interventions to change health behaviours.

Financial incentive interventions are increasingly used as a method of encouraging healthy behaviours, from attending for vaccinations to taking part in regular physical activity. There is a growing body of research on the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions for health behaviours. Wide variations in the nature of these interventions make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about what makes an effective incentive, for whom and under what circumstances. Whilst there has been some recognition of the theoretical complexity of financial incentive interventions for health behaviours, there is no framework that categorises these interventions. This limits the research community's ability to clearly establish which components of financial incentives interventions are more and less effective, and how these components might interact to enable behavioural change. We propose a framework for describing health-promoting financial incentive interventions. Drawing on our experience of a recently completed systematic review, we identify nine domains that are required to describe any financial incentive intervention designed to help individuals change their health behaviours. These are: direction, form, magnitude, certainty, target, frequency, immediacy, schedule and recipient. Our framework should help researchers and policy-makers identify the most effective incentive configurations for helping individuals adopt healthy behaviours.

The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive interventions have been suggested as one method of promoting healthy behaviour change. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions for encouraging healthy behaviour change; to explore whether effects vary according to the type of behaviour incentivised, post-intervention follow-up time, or incentive value. DATA SOURCES: Searches were of relevant electronic databases, research registers, www.google.com, and the reference lists of previous reviews; and requests for information sent to relevant mailing lists. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Controlled evaluations of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions, compared to no intervention or usual care, to encourage healthy behaviour change, in non-clinical adult populations, living in high-income countries, were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess all included studies. Meta-analysis was used to explore the effect of financial incentive interventions within groups of similar behaviours and overall. Meta-regression was used to determine if effect varied according to post-intervention follow up time, or incentive value. RESULTS: Seventeen papers reporting on 16 studies on smoking cessation (n = 10), attendance for vaccination or screening (n = 5), and physical activity (n = 1) were included. In meta-analyses, the average effect of incentive interventions was greater than control for short-term (≤ six months) smoking cessation (relative risk (95% confidence intervals): 2.48 (1.77 to 3.46); long-term (>six months) smoking cessation (1.50 (1.05 to 2.14)); attendance for vaccination or screening (1.92 (1.46 to 2.53)); and for all behaviours combined (1.62 (1.38 to 1.91)). There was not convincing evidence that effects were different between different groups of behaviours. Meta-regression found some, limited, evidence that effect sizes decreased as post-intervention follow-up period and incentive value increased. However, the latter effect may be confounded by the former. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that financial incentive interventions are more effective than usual care or no intervention for encouraging healthy behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012002393.

A systematic review of the use of financial incentives and penalties to encourage uptake of healthy behaviors: protocol.

BACKGROUND: The use of financial incentives and penalties to encourage uptake of healthy behaviors is increasingly seen as a viable intervention in developed countries. Previous reviews of the effectiveness of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging the uptake of healthy behaviors have focused on individual behaviors making it difficult to draw overall conclusions about the effectiveness of such interventions. This systematic review will explore the effectiveness of financial incentives and penalties for encouraging a wide range of behaviors, including: smoking cessation, increased physical activity, healthier dietary intake, sensible patterns of alcohol consumption, safe sun, safe sex, and primary preventive clinical behaviors. METHODS: Systematic methods will be used to search existing literature and screen studies for inclusion. All studies that meet the following inclusion criteria will be included in the review: participants were 18 years old or older and living in high-income countries; interventions included cash or cash-like incentives to promote the uptake of healthy behaviors, or cash or cash-like penalties to discourage unhealthy behaviors; the comparator was usual care or no intervention; study design was randomized controlled trial, cluster randomized controlled trial, controlled before and after study, or interrupted time series analysis. Two reviewers will independently screen the publications to ensure they meet the inclusion criteria. Quality will be assessed by two researchers, working independently, using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis will be conducted, if appropriate. Any studies identified as at 'high risk of bias' will be excluded from meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide policy-relevant recommendations for the use of financial incentives and penalties as a method of encouraging uptake of healthy behaviors.