Effect of Different Financial Incentive Structures on Promoting Physical Activity Among Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Awards and Prizes
Case-Control Studies
Cost-Benefit Analysis
/ methods
Exercise
/ psychology
Health Promotion
/ economics
Humans
Intention to Treat Analysis
/ methods
Life Expectancy
/ trends
Middle Aged
Motivation
/ physiology
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Pennsylvania
/ epidemiology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 08 2019
02 08 2019
Historique:
entrez:
24
8
2019
pubmed:
24
8
2019
medline:
17
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Few adults engage in recommended levels of physical activity. Financial incentives can promote physical activity, but little is known about how the structure of these incentives influences their effectiveness (eg, how incentives are disbursed over time). To determine if it is more effective to disburse fixed total financial incentives at a constant, increasing, or decreasing rate to encourage physical activity. A 2-week randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 2 to 15, 2014, using an online platform that automatically records daily steps of pedometer-wearing users and awards points redeemable for cash. The study population comprised 3515 adult users of the online platform in the lower 70th percentile of steps taken among all users before treatment. Data analyses were performed from August 20, 2014, to February 1, 2018. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Participants were randomized to either a control group or to 1 of 3 intervention groups during the 2 weeks of the study. Participants in the control group received a constant daily rate of $0.00001 per step. The 3 intervention groups received a 20-fold incentive increase ($0.00020 per step) distributed differently during the 2 weeks of the study: at a constant, increasing, or decreasing rate. Reminder emails explaining incentive schedules were sent the day before the intervention and halfway through the 2-week intervention. Change in mean daily steps during the 2-week intervention and 3 weeks after the intervention. The study had 80% power to detect a difference of 280 steps per day during the intervention at α = .05. The study included 3515 participants (879 in the control condition, 879 in the constant incentive condition, 881 in the increasing incentive condition, and 876 in the decreasing incentive condition). During the intervention, compared with participants in the control group, participants receiving constant incentives logged 306.7 more steps per day (95% CI, 91.5-521.9 steps; P = .005), those receiving decreasing incentives logged 96.9 more steps per day (95% CI, 15.3-178.5 steps; P = .02), and those receiving increasing incentives logged no significant change in steps per day (1.5 steps per day; 95% CI, -81.6 to 84.7 steps; P = .97). One week after the intervention, compared with participants in the control group, only participants receiving constant incentives logged significantly more steps per day (329.5; 95% CI, 20.6-638.4; P = .04). Two and 3 weeks after the intervention, there were no significant differences compared with participants in the control group. Overall, for each $1 spent, participants in the constant incentives group logged 475.4 more steps than those in the increasing incentives group and 429.3 more steps than those in the decreasing incentives group. This study found that financial incentives for physical activity were more effective during a payment period when they were offered at a constant rate rather than an increasing or decreasing rate. However, this effectiveness dissipated shortly after the incentives were removed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02154256.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31441936
pii: 2748659
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9863
pmc: PMC6714021
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02154256']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e199863Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Nov 14;165(20):2355-60
pubmed: 16287764
Psychol Rev. 2007 Oct;114(4):843-63
pubmed: 17907866
JAMA. 2008 Dec 10;300(22):2631-7
pubmed: 19066383
N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 12;360(7):699-709
pubmed: 19213683
Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. 2010 Jul;4(4):271-276
pubmed: 20672110
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jun;26(6):621-6
pubmed: 21249462
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Nov;39(7):669-77
pubmed: 21893605
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):189-90
pubmed: 22818931
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):219-29
pubmed: 22818936
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Nov;45(5):658-67
pubmed: 24139781
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 28;372(22):2108-17
pubmed: 25970009
Behav Med. 2017 Apr-Jun;43(2):79-90
pubmed: 26431076
J Health Econ. 2016 Jan;45:47-54
pubmed: 26717440
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 15;164(6):385-94
pubmed: 26881417
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jul;31(7):746-54
pubmed: 26976287
Am J Health Promot. 2016 Jul;30(6):416-24
pubmed: 27422252
Am J Health Promot. 2016 Jul;30(6):441-52
pubmed: 27445325
Br J Sports Med. 2019 May 15;:null
pubmed: 31092399