Enhancing Public Health Strategies: The Role of Behavioral Economics in Health Interventions and Policy

Mary Christine Wheatley
Wheatley Research Consultancy, Bagley, Minnesota, USA
Correspondence to: mchristinewheatley@gmail.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70389/PJPH.100009

Additional information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: No industry funding
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Mary Christine Wheatley – Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, review and editing
• Guarantor: Mary Christine Wheatley
• Provenance and peer-review:
  Commissioned and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: N/a

Keywords: Behavioral economics, Health interventions, Nudges, Vaccination programs, Chronic disease management.

Peer Review
Received: 17 September 2024
Accepted: 17 October 2024
Published: 4 November 2024

Introduction

Behavioral economics, a field at the intersection of psychology and economics, explores how human decisions deviate from those predicted by standard economic theory due to cognitive biases, emotions, and social influences.¹ This discipline’s principles are particularly relevant to public health, where understanding and influencing human behavior is essential for effective policy-making and intervention design. By applying insights from behavioral economics, public health professionals can design interventions that better accommodate human behavior patterns, potentially leading to more successful health outcomes.² The purpose of this review is to analyze and discuss how principles of behavioral economics have been applied to enhance public health policies and interventions. It aims to illustrate the impact of integrating behavioral insights into public health strategies, focusing on various areas such as disease prevention, health promotion, and adherence to medical advice. The review also seeks to identify key factors that contribute to the success or failure of these interventions, providing a critical evaluation of both methodologies and outcomes.³

The importance of behavioral economics in public health cannot be overstated. Traditional health education and intervention models often assume that individuals make health decisions based on rational calculations of benefits and risks. However, behavioral economics recognizes that various non-rational factors influence these decisions, such as present bias, which leads individuals to give stronger weight to immediate rewards than future ones. Understanding these factors allows for the design of interventions that can effectively nudge individuals towards healthier behaviors, improve compliance with health guidelines, and ultimately enhance public health outcomes.^4,5 This approach is increasingly vital as public health systems worldwide strive to manage chronic diseases, enhance preventive healthcare, and respond to public health emergencies.

Foundations of Behavioral Economics in Public Health

Core Principles of Behavioral Economics Relevant to Public Health

Behavioral economics introduces several principles that significantly enhance the understanding and shaping of health behaviors. Among these, loss aversion, status quo bias, and nudge theory are particularly influential in public health settings.

Loss Aversion. This principle posits that individuals tend to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains, suggesting that people’s reactions to losses are stronger than their reactions to gains.⁶ In the context of public health, this has been leveraged in communications that highlight the potential health losses from inaction, such as the risks of smoking or not vaccinating, rather than the benefits of taking action. Studies have shown that framing health messages in terms of what might be lost can significantly increase preventive behaviors such as flu vaccination rates.⁷

Status Quo Bias. This bias describes the preference to keep things the same or maintain a previous decision.⁸ Many public health programs use this bias to their advantage by setting beneficial defaults. An example is the default opt-in policies for organ donations, which have been shown to increase donation rates compared to opt-out schemes.⁹ Similarly, automatic enrollment in health programs or default healthy choices in school cafeterias utilize the status quo bias to nudge individuals towards healthier behaviors without restricting freedom of choice.¹⁰

Nudge Theory. Developed by Thaler and Sunstein, nudge theory involves structuring choices in ways that alter people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.¹ In public health, nudges have been applied to influence decisions towards more healthful behaviors subtly. For instance, placing healthier food at eye level to promote better diet choices or subtle modifications to the built ­environment that encourage more physical activity, like prominently displayed stairs rather than elevators.¹¹ These behavioral economic principles are not only theories but are backed by substantial empirical evidence suggesting their effectiveness in promoting health. The incorporation of these principles into public health strategies allows for more nuanced interventions that can lead to significant improvements in population health outcomes.

Historical Context: Integration of Behavioral Economics into Public Health Strategies

The integration of behavioral economics into public health strategies has evolved significantly over the past few decades. Originally rooted in the academic fields of economics and psychology, behavioral economics began influencing public health once policymakers and researchers recognized that ­traditional economic models, based solely on rational decision-making, were inadequate for addressing ­complex health behaviors.¹²The seminal work by Kahneman and Tversky in the late 1970s and early 1980s laid the groundwork by challenging the classical economic theory that humans are rational agents who always make decisions in their best interest. Their research introduced concepts like prospect theory, which demonstrated how people value gains and losses differently, affecting their decision-making processes in predictable ways.¹² This understanding began to permeate public health during the 1990s when researchers started to question why individuals engaged in behaviors that were detrimental to their health despite knowing the risks involved.¹³ One of the first major applications of behavioral economics in public health was in the design of programs aimed at reducing smoking and improving diet. Programs that employed simple nudges, such as removing unhealthy snacks from easily accessible locations or enhancing the visibility of healthier options, yielded measurable improvements in consumer behavior.¹⁴ These interventions were among the first to show that minor changes in the way choices were presented could significantly influence health-related behaviors.

The early 2000s saw a more structured incorporation of behavioral economic principles with the establishment of the Behavioral Insights Team in the UK in 2010. This team applied nudge theory extensively to public policy, including public health, demonstrating the effectiveness of behavioral economics on a larger scale^.15 Their work influenced public health policies worldwide, encouraging the adoption of similar initiatives in other countries, including the United States, where behavioral economics has been used to tailor health communication strategies and vaccination programs.⁷ Another milestone was the inclusion of behavioral economics in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, particularly in designing the health insurance exchanges. The design leveraged principles such as default options and simplified information presentation to guide better consumer ­decisions.¹⁶ Today, the influence of behavioral economics in public health continues to grow, with an increasing number of interventions being designed around these principles across various domains, including alcohol consumption, physical activity, and preventive health care.¹⁷

Case Examples: Landmark Studies and Early Applications in Public Health

The application of behavioral economics in public health is illustrated through several landmark studies and initiatives that have successfully influenced health behaviors and policy outcomes. These case examples provide concrete evidence of how behavioral economic principles can be practically and effectively ­implemented.

Increasing Vaccination Rates. One prominent study conducted by Milkman et al. utilized the concept of “implementation intentions” to increase influenza vaccination rates among employees at a large utility company. By sending employees personalized messages that prompted them to write down the date and time they planned to get vaccinated, the study found a significant increase in vaccination rates compared to a control group that received no such message.¹⁸

Reducing Smoking through Financial Incentives. Another influential study by Volpp et al. demonstrated the impact of financial incentives on smoking cessation. Participants who agreed to deposit $150, which they would lose if they failed to quit smoking, and who could earn an additional $650 for succeeding were significantly more likely to quit smoking at 6 months compared to those who did not receive any financial incentives.¹⁹

Nudging Healthier Food Choices. The Smarter Lunchrooms Movement, initiated by Cornell University researchers, applied behavioral economics to improve student food choices in school cafeterias. By making simple changes such as placing fruit at eye level or enhancing the attractiveness of healthier meals, schools saw a notable increase in the selection of healthier options by students.¹⁰

Promoting Physical Activity. An interesting application in the UK involved modifying the environment to nudge people towards more physical activity. A study conducted in this context used signs to prompt the use of stairs over escalators in subway stations. This simple intervention led to a measurable increase in the use of stairs, showcasing the subtle power of nudges in shaping health-related behaviors.²⁰

Alcohol Consumption Reduction. Behavioral economics has also been applied to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. A trial involving the modification of beverage labels to highlight the number of standard drinks contained within, as well as potential health consequences, led to a reduction in the quantity of alcohol purchased and consumed by individuals at high risk of alcohol-related harms.²¹ These examples not only underscore the applicability of behavioral economics in various public health arenas but also highlight the potential for scalable interventions that can lead to substantial improvements in population health outcomes.

Current Strategies and Applications

Health Promotion: Using Nudges and Incentives for Healthier Lifestyle Choices

Behavioral economics has significantly impacted health promotion by implementing nudges and incentives designed to steer individuals towards healthier lifestyle choices without restricting their freedom to choose. These techniques are particularly effective in influencing decisions related to diet, smoking cessation, and physical activity.

Dietary Changes. Nudges are used extensively to promote healthier eating habits. For instance, arranging healthier foods to be more accessible and visible in grocery stores and cafeterias has been shown to increase the consumption of these options.²² Another effective strategy is the use of smaller plate sizes, which has been documented to reduce the amount of food consumed without affecting satisfaction levels.²³ These subtle cues align with behavioral economics principles by making the healthier choice the easier choice.

Smoking Cessation. Financial incentives have proven effective in encouraging smokers to quit. Programs that reward individuals with financial gains upon successfully quitting, or conversely, impose financial losses for continuing to smoke, have shown increased rates of smoking cessation.²⁴ These interventions leverage loss aversion—a core principle of behavioral economics—where the fear of losing money can outweigh the desire to continue smoking.

Physical Activity. Increasing physical activity is another area where nudges have shown promise. Simple interventions like posting signs that encourage the use of stairs instead of elevators can significantly increase the use of stairs.²⁵ Moreover, wearable devices that track physical activity can serve as continuous nudges, providing feedback and setting goals that motivate individuals to move more.²⁶

Public health campaigns have also incorporated behavioral economic strategies to frame health communication more effectively. Messages that emphasize immediate benefits  of behavior change rather than long-term outcomes tend to be more effective. For example, promoting the immediate feel-good benefits of exercise is often more motivating than highlighting long-term health benefits.²⁷ The application of these strategies is underpinned by a deep understanding of human behavior and motivation. By designing environments and communications that make healthy choices more intuitive and rewarding, public health professionals can significantly influence health behaviors on a large scale.

Vaccination Programs: Enhancing Uptake through Behavioral Economic Strategies

Behavioral economics has been effectively applied to improve vaccination programs through various ­strategies that leverage human psychology to encourage vaccine uptake. These strategies include the use of reminders, incentives, and specific framing of health communication, all designed to overcome behavioral barriers to vaccination.

Reminders. One of the simplest yet most effective behavioral strategies is the use of reminders. Studies have shown that sending targeted reminders via text messages or emails can significantly increase vaccination rates. These reminders work by reducing forgetfulness and procrastination, common barriers in busy or underserved populations.²⁸ For instance, a systematic review highlighted that text message reminders increased the likelihood of vaccine uptake by reminding individuals of their appointments and the importance of the vaccine for their health and community.²⁹

Incentives. Financial incentives are also used to improve vaccination rates. Offering small cash rewards or vouchers to individuals upon receiving a vaccine can be a strong motivator, particularly in populations that are otherwise hesitant or indifferent to vaccination. The effectiveness of this approach has been demonstrated in various settings, including increasing influenza vaccination rates among healthcare workers and improving childhood immunization rates in ­lower-income communities.^30,31

Framing of Health Communication. The way vaccine information is presented can significantly influence decisions to vaccinate. Behavioral economists use the principle of framing to craft messages that highlight the benefits of vaccination in immediate and relatable terms. For example, emphasizing the immediate protection a vaccine offers to oneself and loved ones tends to resonate more effectively than abstract or statistical benefits. Positive framing, such as emphasizing the success rates of vaccines in preventing disease, has been shown to be more effective than negative framing, which focuses on the consequences of not getting vaccinated.³²

Additionally, normative framing, which involves conveying that most people are getting vaccinated, can capitalize on the bandwagon effect, encouraging others to follow suit. Studies have shown that individuals are more likely to get vaccinated if they perceive that many others in their community are also doing so, leveraging the social proof heuristic as a persuasive tool in public health communications.³³ These behavioral strategies, by addressing specific psychological barriers and incentives, have proven effective in various vaccination campaigns globally. The continuous adaptation and testing of these methods in different contexts are crucial as public health professionals strive to maintain high vaccination coverage, particularly in the face of emerging diseases and vaccine hesitancy.

Chronic Disease Management: Behavioral Economics in Enhancing Adherence and Lifestyle Modifications

In the management of chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, behavioral economics has played a crucial role in designing interventions that enhance medication adherence and encourage necessary lifestyle modifications. These interventions leverage principles like nudging, incentives, and framing to influence patient behaviors positively.

Medication Adherence. Non-adherence to prescribed medication regimens is a significant challenge in chronic disease management. Behavioral economics addresses this issue through reminder systems and financial incentives. Studies have shown that simple nudges, such as automated text messages or smart pill bottles that alert patients when it’s time to take their medication, can significantly improve adherence rates.³⁴ Financial incentives, when tied to adherence, have also proven effective. For example, offering small financial rewards for each day a patient takes their medication as prescribed can lead to sustained behavior changes, as confirmed by randomized controlled trials.³⁵

Lifestyle Modifications. Lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise, are often required to manage chronic diseases effectively. Behavioral interventions have utilized techniques such as goal setting and feedback, often facilitated by digital health applications, to motivate and sustain these changes. For instance, diabetic patients using mobile apps that track food intake and provide feedback based on their dietary goals have shown improved glycemic control.³⁶ ­Similarly, hypertension patients encouraged through periodic feedback and social support to maintain their exercise routines have experienced better blood ­pressure control.³⁷

Framing Health Communications. The way health advice is framed can significantly affect how patients with chronic diseases engage with their treatment plans. For example, emphasizing the immediate benefits of lifestyle changes, such as feeling better or having more energy (as opposed to long-term outcomes like reducing heart disease risk), can be more motivating. This approach aligns with the behavioral economic principle that individuals are generally more responsive to short-term rewards.³⁸

Default Options and Simplification. Simplifying the decision-making process for patients by setting defaults can also lead to better health outcomes. For example, enrolling patients by default into scheduled health screenings or routine check-ups with the option to opt-out increases participation rates. This use of default options leverages the status quo bias, where individuals are more likely to stick with pre-set options.³⁹ These strategies illustrate the practical application of behavioral economics in chronic disease management, highlighting how understanding the psychological underpinnings of patient behavior can lead to more effective health interventions. As chronic diseases continue to be a global burden, these behavioral insights are invaluable in shaping interventions that not only improve individual health outcomes but also reduce overall healthcare costs.

Evaluation of Impact

Effectiveness: Assessing the Impact of Behavioral Economic Interventions

The effectiveness of behavioral economic interventions in public health has been increasingly documented through recent studies and meta-analyses. These interventions, designed to subtly guide individual choices without restricting options, have demonstrated significant impact across various health behaviors and outcomes.

Smoking Cessation. One area where behavioral economics has shown robust effectiveness is in smoking cessation programs. A meta-analysis of studies that implemented financial incentives for smoking cessation reported a consistent improvement in quit rates among participants receiving monetary rewards compared to those who did not receive such incentives.⁴⁰ These findings underscore the power of financial incentives in motivating behavior change, particularly when aligned with individuals’ immediate financial interests.

Dietary Interventions. Behavioral economic strategies have also been effective in promoting healthier eating habits. Research involving the use of nudges, such as placing healthier food options at eye level or using smaller plates, has led to increased selection and consumption of healthier foods. One study highlighted that such simple environmental changes could lead to significant improvements in dietary choices among both children and adults in various settings, including schools, cafeterias, and grocery stores.⁴¹

Vaccination Uptake. In vaccination programs, interventions informed by behavioral economics, such as sending reminders and providing small incentives, have proven effective in increasing rates of immunizations. Studies have shown that personalized reminders can increase adherence to vaccination schedules, with one meta-analysis indicating a noticeable improvement in vaccination coverage due to these interventions.⁷

Physical Activity. Encouraging physical activity through behavioral nudges has also seen success. Interventions that make physical activity more accessible and engaging, such as community campaigns and enhancements to physical environments, have effectively increased activity levels across diverse populations. A review of community-based interventions found that integrating behavioral cues into everyday environments could sustainably boost physical ­activity levels.⁴² Despite these successes, it is important to note that the effectiveness of behavioral economic interventions can vary widely depending on the context, the specific behavior targeted, and the population demographics. For instance, while financial incentives may work well in smoking cessation, their effectiveness might be less pronounced in complex behaviors influenced by ­multiple social and environmental factors, such as diet and exercise. Furthermore, the long-term sustainability of behavior changes initiated through economic nudges remains a critical area of ongoing research.¹⁹

Limitations: Challenges in Applying Behavioral Economics to Public Health

While behavioral economics offers powerful tools for influencing public health behaviors, several limitations and challenges can hinder its effectiveness and broad application. Understanding these challenges is crucial for refining intervention strategies and setting realistic expectations.

Context Dependency. The success of behavioral economic interventions can vary significantly depending on the cultural, social, and economic contexts in which they are implemented.⁴³ Techniques that work well in one setting may not be effective in another due to differences in social norms, economic conditions, and health literacy. For example, nudges that successfully increase gym attendance in urban settings may not be effective in rural areas where access to such facilities is limited.¹

Scalability and Sustainability. While many behavioral interventions show promising results in controlled environments or small-scale studies, scaling them up to affect broader populations often presents significant challenges.⁴⁴ Furthermore, the long-term sustainability of such interventions is frequently uncertain, as initial effects may diminish over time or require continuous reinforcement, which can be resource-intensive.⁴⁵

Complexity of Behaviors. Many health-related behaviors are complex and influenced by a multitude of factors, including genetics, environment, and personal history. Behavioral economics interventions that focus on simple nudges or incentives may not be sufficient to change behaviors that are deeply ingrained or biologically driven, such as addiction or chronic disease management.⁴⁶

Ethical and Moral Considerations. There are also ethical concerns regarding the manipulation of choice architectures. Critics argue that even well-intentioned nudges can be paternalistic, infringing on individuals’ autonomy and the right to make uncoerced decisions.⁴⁷ Moreover, the use of incentives can raise moral questions about the commodification of health behaviors, potentially leading to inequities where only those who can afford to change are incentivized to do so.⁴⁸

Measurement and Attribution Issues. Measuring the direct impact of behavioral economics interventions on public health outcomes can be challenging. Attribution of outcomes to specific interventions is complicated by the presence of numerous confounding variables, such as concurrent health programs and policy changes.⁴⁹ This complexity can make it difficult to definitively prove the efficacy of behavioral economic strategies.

Resistance and Backlash. There is also the potential for resistance or backlash from communities who may perceive interventions as intrusive or coercive. Public skepticism towards manipulation or incentives, ­especially in sensitive areas like vaccinations or dietary choices, can undermine the effectiveness of these ­strategies.⁵⁰ These limitations underscore the need for careful design, rigorous testing, and ethical consideration in the application of behavioral economics to public health. Addressing these challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach that considers the broader societal, ethical, and scientific contexts in which these interventions operate.

Ethical Considerations: Navigating the Moral Landscape of Behavioral Economics in Public Health

The application of behavioral economics to public health policy introduces several ethical considerations and potential unintended consequences that must be vigilantly managed. As interventions increasingly leverage human psychology to influence behavior, the ethical implications of such influence demand careful scrutiny.

Autonomy and Consent. At the core of the ethical debate is the concern about individual autonomy.⁵⁰ Nudges and other behavioral interventions often function at a subconscious level, potentially bypassing conscious decision-making processes. This raises questions about the extent to which these interventions respect an individual’s right to make informed choices. Critics argue that while nudges are designed to be benign and welfare-enhancing, they must not manipulate individuals in ways that undermine informed consent.⁴⁷

Transparency and Deception. Another ethical issue involves the transparency of behavioral interventions.⁵¹ There is a fine line between subtly guiding behavior and deceiving individuals about the nature of their choices. Public health policies must ensure that  behavioral strategies are not only effective but also transparent and free from deceptive practices that could erode trust in public institutions.

Fairness and Equity. Behavioral interventions must also be evaluated for their fairness and potential to exacerbate social inequalities.⁵² For example, incentives might work effectively for those who are already motivated or financially capable, but they may fail to reach or benefit the most vulnerable populations who cannot easily change their behaviors due to economic or social constraints. This could unintentionally widen health disparities, contrary to the egalitarian goals of public health.

Paternalism. The use of behavioral economics in public health is often critiqued through the lens of paternalism.1 While “libertarian paternalism” as proposed in nudge theory suggests a softer, more acceptable form of paternalism, it still involves guiding individuals towards choices that policymakers deem better or healthier. This paternalistic approach must be carefully balanced with respect for individual preferences and social norms.

Unintended Consequences. Finally, there are concerns about the unintended consequences that may arise from behavioral interventions.¹⁵ These can include overreliance on nudges at the expense of more substantial health reforms or the possibility that nudges could lead to backlash or reduced effectiveness over time as individuals grow wary of being ­manipulated. Given these considerations, it is crucial that public health policies employing behavioral economics adhere to principles of ethical practice, including respect for autonomy, transparency, fairness, and careful consideration of both intended and unintended impacts.

Future Directions and Recommendations

Innovative Approaches: Enhancing Public Health Outcomes Through Behavioral Economics

Behavioral economics continues to evolve, offering innovative approaches that could significantly enhance public health outcomes. These approaches expand the traditional toolkit by incorporating novel insights and technologies that engage individuals more effectively and personalize interventions to better meet their health needs.

Gamification. One promising approach is the use of gamification elements in health programs. Gamification involves the application of game-design elements in non-game contexts to motivate and increase user engagement.⁵³ In public health, gamification can be used to encourage healthy behaviors through challenges, progress tracking, and rewards. Studies have shown that gamified interventions can lead to improved physical activity, dietary habits, and medication adherence.⁵⁴

Social Influence and Network Analysis. Leveraging social networks is another innovative approach. Behavioral economists are exploring how social influences affect health decisions and how these can be harnessed to spread healthy behaviors through communities. Interventions that use peer influence and social norm feedback have been effective in increasing vaccination rates and smoking cessation, especially when targeting key influencers within networks.⁵⁵

Personalized Nudging. Advances in data analytics and machine learning allow for the creation of more personalized nudges. By analyzing large datasets on individual behavior, interventions can be tailored to fit personal motivations and barriers to health. This personalization can increase the relevance and effectiveness of health nudges, making them more persuasive and less intrusive.⁵⁶

Real-time Feedback Systems. The development of real-time feedback systems that provide immediate information about health-related behaviors can enhance self-monitoring and correction. For instance, wearable devices that provide real-time feedback on physical  activity levels or glucose readings can help individuals adjust their behaviors instantly to align with health goals.⁵⁷

Behavioral Economic Incentives in Insurance Models. Integrating behavioral economics into health insurance models to reward healthy behaviors is another innovative approach. Insurance plans that offer premium reductions or other financial incentives for regular health check-ups, vaccinations, or consistent exercise regimes can motivate sustained health behavior changes.⁵⁸ These innovative approaches, grounded in behavioral economic principles, promise not only to enhance the effectiveness of public health interventions but also to make them more engaging and responsive to the needs of individuals. By continuing to integrate these cutting-edge strategies, public health initiatives can achieve greater impact and efficiency in improving population health.

Integration with Technology: Enhancing Behavioral Economics through Digital Health Technologies

The integration of behavioral economics with digital health technologies offers a potent combination for personalizing health interventions and amplifying their impact. This fusion can harness the precision of technology and the insight of behavioral science to create more engaging, effective, and scalable health solutions.

Personal Health Apps. Mobile health applications that incorporate behavioral economics principles can significantly influence health behaviors by delivering personalized nudges at optimal times. For example, apps that remind users to take their medication or encourage physical activity have been enhanced with algorithms that learn from user interactions to optimize the timing and content of messages.⁵⁹ These apps can increase adherence to prescribed health regimens and lifestyle changes by making recommendations more relevant and timely.

Wearables and Real-Time Data. Wearable devices provide continuous health monitoring—tracking everything from physical activity to glucose levels—and offer a unique platform for behavioral interventions. By integrating behavioral economic principles, such as immediate rewards or loss aversion, these devices can prompt users to make healthier choices in real time. For instance, a wearable that tracks physical activity might provide instant feedback or rewards when a user achieves their daily step goal, leveraging instant gratification to reinforce behavior.⁵⁷

Virtual Health Assistants. Advances in artificial intelligence have led to the development of virtual health assistants that can deliver behaviorally optimized health advice. These assistants use techniques from behavioral economics to frame suggestions in a way that increases the likelihood of compliance. For example, they might use social proof (“People like you tend to benefit from…”) or set default options that guide users towards healthier behaviors without restricting choice.⁶⁰

Gamified Health Challenges. Integrating gamification into digital platforms can also enhance engagement and motivation. Apps that feature challenges, leaderboards, and rewards can motivate users to achieve health goals in a fun and engaging way. The competitive and interactive elements tap into the user’s intrinsic motivation, making it more likely that they will stick with healthy behaviors over the long term.⁶¹

Customized Intervention Strategies. Technology enables the gathering and analysis of large datasets on individual behavior, which can be used to tailor interventions more precisely to the needs of different population segments. This customization can address the specific barriers to health behavior change in different demographic groups, increasing the overall effectiveness of public health programs.⁵⁶ By leveraging digital technologies, behavioral economics can more effectively influence health behaviors at scale, providing tailored interventions that are both persuasive  and supportive. This strategic integration not only has the potential to enhance individual health outcomes but also to significantly reduce the burden of chronic diseases on public health systems globally.

Policy Recommendations: Enhancing Public Health Programs through Behavioral Economics

To maximize the impact of public health initiatives, policymakers and public health professionals should more effectively integrate behavioral economic principles into their strategies. These recommendations are designed to ensure that these principles are applied ethically and effectively to improve health outcomes across populations.

Integrate Behavioral Insights into Policy Design. Policymakers should incorporate behavioral insights at the earliest stages of policy development. This involves consulting behavioral scientists to design interventions that are more likely to influence health behaviors positively. For example, using default options for organ donation registration or automatic enrollment in preventative health screenings can significantly increase participation rates without compromising individual choice.³⁹

Foster Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Establishing partnerships between economists, psychologists, public health experts, and data scientists can lead to more innovative and effective health interventions. Such collaborations can utilize diverse expertise to address complex health challenges, ensuring that interventions are well-rounded and consider various behavioral drivers.⁶²

Implement Rigorous Evaluation and Scaling. Before wide-scale implementation, it is crucial to evaluate interventions through pilot studies and randomized controlled trials to assess their effectiveness and potential unintended consequences. Successful strategies should be scaled thoughtfully, with adjustments based on continuous feedback and data analysis to optimize outcomes.¹⁶

Use Technology to Personalize Interventions. Policymakers should encourage the use of digital technologies to deliver personalized health messages and interventions. For instance, mobile apps can provide tailored advice and feedback based on individual user data, significantly enhancing the personal relevance and impact of health communications.⁵⁶

Enhance Transparency and Public Engagement. To maintain trust and cooperation from the public, it is essential to keep behavioral health interventions transparent. Policymakers should actively engage with the community to explain how and why behavioral techniques are used and to gather feedback on their acceptability and effectiveness.⁶³

Provide Training and Resources. Health professionals and policymakers should receive training in behavioral economics principles to enhance their understanding and ability to apply these insights effectively. Additionally, providing resources and ongoing support can help integrate these principles more seamlessly into everyday public health practice.³ By adhering to these recommendations, public health programs can leverage behavioral economics to foster healthier behaviors, reduce the incidence of chronic diseases, and effectively address emerging health challenges, ultimately leading to improved public health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.

Conclusion

This review has highlighted the transformative impact of behavioral economics on public health, illustrating how its principles can significantly alter health behaviors for better outcomes. By integrating concepts like nudges, incentives, and personalized messaging into public health strategies, we’ve seen improvements in areas such as vaccination uptake, smoking cessation, and healthier lifestyle choices. These interventions not only enhance individual health outcomes but also offer scalable solutions that can be adapted across various populations and settings. However, the effective application of these strategies requires careful consideration of ethical implications and cultural contexts to ensure they are both effective and respectful of individual autonomy. As the landscape of public health continues to evolve, it is crucial to deepen our understanding of how behavioral economic principles can be further harnessed to address emerging health challenges. Ongoing research and innovative applications of these strategies are essential. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers should collaborate to refine and expand the use of behavioral economics in public health, aiming to optimize health outcomes across all sectors of society. This concerted effort will not only improve the efficacy of public health interventions but also ensure that they are delivered in a fair, transparent, and equitable manner.

References

1 Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press; 2008.
 
2 Hollands GJ, Marteau TM, Fletcher PC. Non-conscious processes in changing health-related behaviour: A conceptual analysis and framework. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(4):381-94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1138093
 
3 Volpp KG, Loewenstein G, Troxel AB, Doshi J, Price M, Laskin M, et al. A test of financial incentives to improve warfarin adherence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:272.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-272
 
4 Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263-92.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
 
5 Bickel WK, Moody L, Quisenberry A, Ramey CT, Sheffer CE. A review of behavioral economic interventions in tobacco use disorder. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(3):358-78.
 
6 Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Q J Econ. 1991;106(4):1039-61.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956
 
7 Chapman GB, Li M, Colby H, Yoon H. Opting in vs opting out of influenza vaccination. JAMA. 2010;304(1):43-4.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.892
 
8 Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain. 1988;1(1):7-59.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
 
9 Johnson EJ, Goldstein D. Do defaults save lives? Science. 2003;302(5649):1338-9.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721
 
10 Just DR, Wansink B. Smarter lunchrooms: Using behavioral economics to improve meal selection. Choices. 2009;24(3):1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.24.1_supplement.322.1
 
11 Ly K, Mazar N, Zhao M, Soman D. A practitioner’s guide to nudging. Rotman School of Management Working Paper; 2013. p. 2609347.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2609347
 
12 Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):363-91.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
 
13 Loewenstein G, Brennan T, Volpp KG. Asymmetric paternalism to improve health behaviors. JAMA. 2007;298(20):2415-7.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.20.2415
 
14 Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP. Judging nudging: Can nudging improve population health? BMJ. 2011;342.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d228
 
15 Halpern D. Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference. WH Allen; 2015.
 
16 Madrian BC. Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design. Annu Rev Econ. 2014;6:663-88.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041033
 
17 Milkman KL, Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC. using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(26):10415-20.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103170108
 
18 Milkman KL, Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC. Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(26):10415-10420.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103170108
 
19 Volpp KG, Troxel AB, Pauly MV, Glick HA, Puig A, Asch DA, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(7):699-709.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0806819
 
20 Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, King D, Metcalfe R, Vlaev I. Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. J Econ Psychol. 2012;33(1):264-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.009
 
21 Young B, Lewis S, Katikireddi SV, Bauld L, Stead M, Angus K, et al. Effectiveness of mass media campaigns to reduce alcohol consumption and harm: A systematic review. Alcohol Alcohol. 2018;53(3):302-16.
https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx094
 
22 Thorndike AN, Riis J, Sonnenberg LM, Levy DE. Traffic-light labels and choice architecture: Promoting healthy food choices. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(2):143-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.002
 
23 Wansink B, van Ittersum K. Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2013;19(4):320-32.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035053
 
24 Volpp KG, John LK, Troxel AB, Norton L, Fassbender J, Loewenstein G. Financial incentive-based approaches for weight loss: A randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;300(22):2631-7.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.804
 
25 Nocon M, Müller-Riemenschneider F, Nitzschke K, Willich SN. Review article: Increasing physical activity with point-of-choice prompts-A systematic review. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(6):633-8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494810375865
 
26 Patel MS, Asch DA, Rosin R, Small DS, Bellamy SL, Eberbach K, et al. Individual versus team-based financial incentives to increase physical activity: A randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(7):746-54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3627-0
 
27 Adams J, Giles EL, McColl E, Sniehotta FF. Carrots, sticks and health behaviours: A framework for documenting the complexity of financial incentive interventions to change health behaviours. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(3):286-95.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.848410
 
28 Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Vargas CY, Vawdrey DK, Camargo S. Effect of a text messaging intervention on influenza vaccination in an urban, low-income pediatric and adolescent population: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;307(16):1702-8.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.502
 
29 Crouse Quinn S. Health communication strategies in the context of vaccination programs: Review and implications. Health Educ Behav. 2017;44(6):923-7.
 
30 Gneezy U, Meier S, Rey-Biel P. When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. J Econ Perspect. 2011;25(4):191-210.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191
 
31 Gibson DG, Ochieng B, Kagucia EW, Were J, Hayford K, Moulton LH, et al. Mobile phone-delivered reminders and incentives to improve childhood immunization coverage and timeliness in Kenya (M-SIMU): A cluster randomized controlled trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(4):e428-e438.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30072-4
 
32 Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):e835-42.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365
 
33 Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):136-45.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
 
34 Vervloet M, Linn AJ, van Weert JC, de Bakker DH, Bouvy ML, van Dijk L. The effectiveness of interventions using electronic reminders to improve adherence to chronic medication: A systematic review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(5):696-704.
https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000748
 
35 Petry NM, Rash CJ, Byrne S, Ashraf S, White WB. Financial reinforcers for improving medication adherence: Findings from a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2012;125(9):888-96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.01.003
 
36 Quinn CC, Shardell MD, Terrin ML, Barr EA, Ballew SH, Gruber-Baldini AL. Cluster-randomized trial of a mobile phone personalized behavioral intervention for blood glucose control. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(9):1934-42.
https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-0366
 
37 King AC, Ahn DK, Oliveira BM, Atienza AA, Castro CM, Gardner CD. Promoting physical activity through hand-held computer technology. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(2):138-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.025
 
38 Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39(4):341-50.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
 
39 Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Asch DA. Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(13):1340-4.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb071595
 
40 Cahill K, Stevens S, Perera R, Lancaster T. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: An overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(5):CD009329.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2
 
41 Thorndike AN, Sonnenberg L, Riis J, Barraclough S, Levy DE. A 2-phase labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(3):527-33.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300391
 
42 Marcus BH, Williams DM, Dubbert PM, Sallis JF, King AC, Yancey AK, et al. Physical activity intervention studies: What we know and what we need to know: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Subcommittee on Physical Activity); Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; and the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research. Circulation. 2006;114(24):2739-52.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.179683
 
43 Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: The importance of targeting automatic processes. Science. 2012;337(6101):1492-5.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226918
 
44 Volpp KG, Asch DA, Galvin R, Loewenstein G. Redesigning employee health incentives-lessons from behavioral economics. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):388-90.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1105966
 
45 Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
 
46 Balmford A, Annan JD. Conservation and behavior change: Lessons from social marketing for behavioral economics. Conserv Lett. 2017;10(4):485-92.
 
47 Hausman DM, Welch B. Debate: To nudge or not to nudge. J Polit Philos. 2010;18(1):123-36.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x
 
48 Loewenstein G, Bryce C, Hagmann D, Rajpal S. Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behav Sci Policy. 2015;1(1):35-42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/237946151500100106
 
49 Ali PA, Naylor PB. Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the biological and psychological explanations for its causation. Aggress Violent Behav. 2013;18(3):373-82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.01.003
 
50 Bovens L. The ethics of nudge. In: Grüne-Yanoff T, Hansson SO, editors. Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology. Springer; 2009. pp. 207-19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2593-7_10
 
51 Sunstein CR. Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. Yale University Press; 2014.
 
52 Schmidt H, Voigt K, Wikler D. Carrots, sticks, and health care reform-Problems with wellness incentives. N Eng J Med. 2010;362:e3.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0911552
 
53 Sailer M, Hense JU, Mayr SK, Mandl H. How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;69:371-80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
 
54 Hamari J, Koivisto J, Pakkanen T. Do persuasive technologies persuade? – A review of empirical studies. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Persuasive Technology; 2014. pp. 118-29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_11
 
55 Centola D. How Behavior Spreads: The Science of Complex Contagions. Princeton University Press; 2018.
https://doi.org/10.23943/9781400890095
 
56 Linn AJ, Vervloet M, van Dijk L, Smit EG, Van Weert JC. Effects of eHealth interventions on medication adherence: A systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e103.
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1738
 
57 Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA. 2015;313(5):459-60.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.14781
 
58 Volpp KG, Pauly MV, Loewenstein G, Bangsberg D. P4P4P: An agenda for research on pay-for-performance for patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(1):206-14.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.206
 
59 Krebs P, Duncan DT. Health app use among US mobile phone owners: A national survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(4):e101.
https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4924
 
60 Mendiola MF, Kalnicki M, Lindenauer S. Valuable features in mobile health apps for patients and consumers: content analysis of apps and user ratings. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(2):e40.
https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4283
 
61 Sardi L, Idri A, Fernández-Alemán JL. A systematic review of gamification in e-Health. J Biomed Inform. 2017;71:31-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.05.011
 
62 Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J Polit Econ. 1990;98(6):1325-48.
https://doi.org/10.1086/261737
 
63 Oliver A. Behavioral Public Policy. Cambridge University Press; 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337190

Cite this article as:
Wheatley MC. Enhancing Public Health Strategies: The Role of Behavioral Economics in Health Interventions and Policy. Premier Journal of Public Health 2024:1;100009

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley