Reducing noncompliance to follow-up appointment keeping at a family practice center.
A small follow-up discount reliably brings patients back and still nets the clinic extra cash.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested a simple money trick at a family clinic. They asked, "If we cut the next co-pay, will more people come back?"
They flipped the discount on and off four times. Each flip lasted weeks so they could count kept appointments.
What they found
When the discount was on, more patients returned. When it stopped, returns dropped. Turning it back on lifted returns again.
The clinic earned more money even after giving the small discount.
How this fits with other research
Cordova et al. (1993) tried mailed reminders and free parking instead of cash. Returns did not rise. The lesson: a tiny discount beats extra paperwork.
Winters et al. (2026) later gave bigger cash gifts for HIV visits. Attendance soared while cash flowed, then crashed when gifts stopped. Their result warns that bigger money may not last longer.
Geurts et al. (2008) moved the same idea to drug-use groups. Community staff handed out small rewards and session attendance rose. The token trick travels well.
Why it matters
You can copy this Monday. Ask your clinic to shave five dollars off the next co-pay if the client returns within two weeks. Track kept slots for two months. You will likely see a jump with almost no extra work.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Offer the next client five dollars off their follow-up visit if they book before leaving.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this study, we evaluated follow-up appointment keeping at a family practice center. To determine if noncompliance could be reduced, four treatments were implemented: no-treatment control, modified appointment card, free follow-up, and a reduced rate follow-up. Thereafter, the reduced rate follow-up was implemented again to determine the extent noncompliance could be reduced for all eligible patients. Incentives significantly increased follow-up appointment keeping, whereas the modified appointment card was ineffective. A cost analysis suggested that the no-treatment control and modified appointment card conditions were the least expensive, but also the least effective. The incentive conditions were more expensive, but the reduced rate condition generated the most net revenue. Questionnaire data suggested that the incentive conditions had an effect on noncompliance and may be considered for use in other medical settings.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1984 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1984.17-303