Effect of financial incentives for participation in dementia prevention and support activities: results of a web survey with persons aged 60 and older

Abstract

Background This study aims to elucidate the impact of financial incentives on the motivation to participate in dementia prevention activities and to provide support to people with dementia. Methods An online survey was completed by 1500 men and women, aged 60 or above, from the general community in Japan. When responding to questions regarding motivation for participating in dementia prevention activities and providing support to people with dementia, respondents were randomly assigned different incentive conditions. Two incentive options were used for dementia prevention activities (no incentives, and a small number of reward points). Three incentive options were used for support activities (no incentives, a small cash reward, or an in‐kind time reward that allowed respondents or their family members to use similar services at a later time (time credits)). Results Financial incentives decreased motivation for participating in dementia prevention activities, while time credits significantly increased motivation to participate in providing support to people with dementia for going out of their home, when receiving a cash reward was compared with receiving no reward. No significant differences by incentive were found for participating in daily living support for those with dementia or for providing support at a dementia café where people with dementia and their families interact. Conclusions The adverse influence of financial incentives on motivation to participate in dementia prevention suggested that financial incentives may reduce intrinsic motivation for dementia prevention activities. The positive effects of time credits in providing support to people with dementia in going out suggested that time credits might be effective for some support activities for people with dementia. Different incentive measures should be considered to raise awareness of dementia prevention and dementia support activities.

Does usage of monetary incentive impact the involvement in surveys? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 randomized controlled trials

“…The remaining 521 articles underwent a full-text evaluation to determine eligibility. Finally, 46 RCTs [ 3 , 4 , 12 – 55 ] met the criteria for final inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The process of study selection and the reasons for exclusion are shown in Fig 1 .…”

“…Attrition bias was a high risk of bias in three RCTs [ 33 , 35 , 41 ], unclear risk of bias in Boucher et al [ 14 ], and low risk of bias in the rest of the included RCTs. Selective reporting was low risk in all included RCTs, except three RCTs were at high risk of bias [ 4 , 28 , 35 ]. The risk of bias summary for each study and the risk of bias graph for bias domains is shown in Fig 2 and S1 Fig .…”

“…RCTs [3,4, met the criteria for final inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The process of study selection and the reasons for exclusion are shown in Fig 1.…”

“…Therefore, efforts are continuously made to improve survey response rates using different methods like incentives. Various incentives have been used to increase response rates, such as candy, lottery, vouchers, and money [2][3][4].…”