Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science.

Policy-makers are increasingly turning to behavioural science for insights about how to improve citizens' decisions and outcomes1. Typically, different scientists test different intervention ideas in different samples using different outcomes over different time intervals2. The lack of comparability of such individual investigations limits their potential to inform policy. Here, to address this limitation and accelerate the pace of discovery, we introduce the megastudy-a massive field experiment in which the effects of many different interventions are compared in the same population on the same objectively measured outcome for the same duration. In a megastudy targeting physical exercise among 61,293 members of an American fitness chain, 30 scientists from 15 different US universities worked in small independent teams to design a total of 54 different four-week digital programmes (or interventions) encouraging exercise. We show that 45% of these interventions significantly increased weekly gym visits by 9% to 27%; the top-performing intervention offered microrewards for returning to the gym after a missed workout. Only 8% of interventions induced behaviour change that was significant and measurable after the four-week intervention. Conditioning on the 45% of interventions that increased exercise during the intervention, we detected carry-over effects that were proportionally similar to those measured in previous research3-6. Forecasts by impartial judges failed to predict which interventions would be most effective, underscoring the value of testing many ideas at once and, therefore, the potential for megastudies to improve the evidentiary value of behavioural science.

Loss aversion, the endowment effect, and gain-loss framing shape preferences for noninstrumental information.

We often talk about interacting with information as we would with a physical good (e.g., "consuming content") and describe our attachment to personal beliefs in the same way as our attachment to personal belongings (e.g., "holding on to" or "letting go of" our beliefs). But do we in fact value information the way we do objects? The valuation of money and material goods has been extensively researched, but surprisingly few insights from this literature have been applied to the study of information valuation. This paper demonstrates that two fundamental features of how we value money and material goods embodied in Prospect Theory-loss aversion and different risk preferences for gains versus losses-also hold true for information, even when it has no material value. Study 1 establishes loss aversion for noninstrumental information by showing that people are less likely to choose a gamble when the same outcome is framed as a loss (rather than gain) of information. Study 2 shows that people exhibit the endowment effect for noninstrumental information, and so value information more, simply by virtue of "owning" it. Study 3 provides a conceptual replication of the classic "Asian Disease" gain-loss pattern of risk preferences, but with facts instead of human lives, thereby also documenting a gain-loss framing effect for noninstrumental information. These findings represent a critical step in building a theoretical analogy between information and objects, and provide a useful perspective on why we often resist changing (or losing) our beliefs.

Where next for behavioral public policy?

Our target article distinguishes between policy approaches that seek to address societal problems through intervention at the level of the individual (adopting the "i-frame") and those that seek to change the system within which those individuals live (adopting the "s-frame"). We stress also that a long-standing tactic of corporations opposing systemic change is to promote the i-frame perspective, presumably hoping that i-frame interventions will be largely ineffective and more importantly will be seen by the public and some policy makers as a genuine alternative to systemic change. We worry that the i-frame focus of much of behavioral science has inadvertently reinforced this unhelpful focus on the individual. In this response to commentators, we identify common themes, build on the many constructive suggestions to extend our approach, and reply to concerns. We argue, along with several commentators, that a key role of behavioral public policy is to clarify how to build support for systemic reforms for which there is a broad consensus in the policy community, but which are opposed by powerful special interests.

The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray.

An influential line of thinking in behavioral science, to which the two authors have long subscribed, is that many of society's most pressing problems can be addressed cheaply and effectively at the level of the individual, without modifying the system in which the individual operates. We now believe this was a mistake, along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both the academic and policy communities. Results from such interventions have been disappointingly modest. But more importantly, they have guided many (though by no means all) behavioral scientists to frame policy problems in individual, not systemic, terms: To adopt what we call the "i-frame," rather than the "s-frame." The difference may be more consequential than i-frame advocates have realized, by deflecting attention and support away from s-frame policies. Indeed, highlighting the i-frame is a long-established objective of corporate opponents of concerted systemic action such as regulation and taxation. We illustrate our argument briefly for six policy problems, and in depth with the examples of climate change, obesity, retirement savings, and pollution from plastic waste. We argue that the most important way in which behavioral scientists can contribute to public policy is by employing their skills to develop and implement value-creating system-level change.

Primary caregiver decision-making in hematopoietic cell transplantation and gene therapy for sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes and the availability of clinical trials of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from alternate donors and genetically modified autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells have expanded the applicability of HCT for sickle cell disease (SCD). To understand the perspective of primary caregivers exploring HCT in the current milieu, we asked the research question "What motivates primary caregivers to decide to consider HCT and to seek, and to attend, an HCT consultation?" PROCEDURES: We conducted qualitative interviews with primary caregivers within one week after a consultation for HCT for SCD. Data were analyzed using open and axial coding stages of grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 primary caregivers (26 females, age 29 to 64 [median 42] years). Primary caregivers report of SCD complications in their child included at least one in the last year by 23 (82%), few or none by 8 (28%), and pain on ≥3 days a week by 13 (46%) primary caregivers. Qualitative analysis revealed that primary caregivers, (i) learn about curative options through social networks, social media, and the news media; (ii) seek consultation because of their child's diminished quality of life, recent complications, an imminent major medical decision, or anxiety about future severe complications; and (iii) see gene therapy as a new, less invasive, and more acceptable treatment. CONCLUSION: Primary caregivers of children with SCD learn about HCT through social networks, social and news media, and explore HCT as a means to prevent SCD complications and help their child live a normal life.

Clinical signs associated with earlier diagnosis of children with autism Spectrum disorder.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to gain new insights into the relationship between clinical signs and age at diagnosis. METHOD: We utilize a new, large, online survey of 1743 parents of children diagnosed with ASD, and use multiple statistical approaches. These include regression analysis, factor analysis, and machine learning (regression tree). RESULTS: We find that clinical signs that most strongly predict early diagnosis are not necessarily specific to autism, but rather those that initiate the process that eventually leads to an ASD diagnosis. Given the high correlations between symptoms, only a few signs are found to be important in predicting early diagnosis. For several clinical signs we find that their presence and intensity are positively correlated with delayed diagnosis (e.g., tantrums and aggression). Even though our data are drawn from parents' retrospective accounts, we provide evidence that parental recall bias and/or hindsight bias did not play a significant role in shaping our results. CONCLUSION: In the subset of children without early deficits in communication, diagnosis is delayed, and this might be improved if more attention will be given to clinical signs that are not necessarily considered as ASD symptoms. Our findings also suggest that careful attention should be paid to children showing excessive tantrums or aggression, as these behaviors may interfere with an early ASD diagnoses.

Video-observed therapy and medication adherence for tuberculosis patients: randomised controlled trial in Moldova.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of video-observed therapy (VOT) for treating tuberculosis (TB) has not been measured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where >95% of TB cases and deaths occur. In this study, we analyse the effectiveness and patient cost-difference of VOT compared to clinic-based directly observed therapy (DOT) in improving medication adherence in Moldova, a LMIC in Eastern Europe. METHODS: The study was a two-arm individually randomised trial with 197 TB patients (n=99 DOT control group; n=98 VOT treatment group; multidrug-resistant TB cases were excluded). The primary outcome was observed medication adherence, measured by the number of days that a patient failed to be observed adhering to medication for every 2-week period during the course of their treatment. RESULTS: VOT significantly decreased nonadherence by 4 days (95% CI 3.35-4.67 days, p<0.01) per 2-week period: 5.24 days missed per 2-week period for DOT and 1.29 days for VOT. VOT patients spent MDL 504 (∼EUR 25) (95% CI MDL 277-730, p<0.01) and 58 h (95% CI 48-68 h, p<0.01) less on their treatment. In addition, VOT increased self-reported satisfaction with treatment. We found no significant results pertaining to treatment success, patient wellbeing or patient employment status and some evidence of an increase in side-effects. DISCUSSION: In this trial, VOT increased observed medication adherence for TB patients in Moldova, a LMIC, when compared to clinic-based DOT. Additionally, VOT significantly reduced the time and money patients spent on their treatment.

The Habit Formation trial of behavioral economic interventions to improve statin use and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease: Rationale, design and methodologies.

BACKGROUND: Low adherence to statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) medication is common. Here, we report on the design and implementation of the Habit Formation trial. This clinical trial assessed whether the interventions, based on principles from behavioral economics, might improve statin adherence and lipid control in at-risk populations. We describe the rationale and methods for the trial, recruitment, conduct and follow-up. We also report on several barriers we encountered with recruitment and conduct of the trial, solutions we devised and efforts we will make to assess their impact on our study. METHODS: Habit Formation is a four-arm randomized controlled trial. Recruitment of 805 participants at elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with evidence of sub-optimal statin adherence and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) control is complete. Initially, we recruited from large employers (Employers) and a national health insurance company (Insurers) using mailed letters; individuals with a statin Medication Possession Ratio less than 80% were invited to participate. Respondents were enrolled if a laboratory measurement of low-density lipoprotein was >130 mg/dL. Subsequently, we recruited participants from the Penn Medicine Health System; individuals with usual-care low-density lipoprotein of >100 mg/dL in the electronic medical record were recruited using phone, text, email, and regular mail. Eligible participants self-reported incomplete medication adherence. During a 6-month intervention period, all participants received a wireless-enabled pill bottle for their statins and daily reminder messages to take their medication. Principles of behavioral economics were used to design three financial incentives, specifically a Simple Daily Sweepstakes rewarding daily medication adherence, a Deadline Sweepstakes where participants received either a full or reduced incentive depending on whether they took their medication before or after a daily reminder or Sweepstakes Plus Deposit Contract with incentives divided between daily sweepstakes and a monthly deposit. Six months post-incentives, we compared the primary outcome, mean change from baseline low-density lipoprotein, across arms. RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED: Health system recruitment yielded substantially better enrollment and was cost-efficient. Despite unexpected systematic failure and/or poor availability of two wireless pill bottles, we achieved enrollment targets and implemented the interventions. For new trials, we will routinely monitor device function and have contingency plans in the event of systemic failure. CONCLUSION: Interventions used in the Habit Formation trial could be translated into clinical practice. Within a large health system, successful recruitment depended on identification of eligible individuals through their electronic medical record, along with flexible ways of contacting these individuals. Challenges with device failure were manageable. The study will add to our understanding of optimally structuring and implementing incentives to motivate durable behavior change.

Comparative Effectiveness of a Web-Based Patient Decision Aid for Therapeutic Options for Sickle Cell Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyurea, chronic blood transfusions, and bone marrow transplantation are efficacious, disease-modifying therapies for sickle cell disease but involve complex risk-benefit trade-offs and decisional dilemma compounded by the lack of comparative studies. A patient decision aid can inform patients about their treatment options, the associated risks and benefits, help them clarify their values, and allow them to participate in medical decision making. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a literacy-sensitive Web-based patient decision aid based on the Ottawa decision support framework, and through a randomized clinical trial estimate the effectiveness of the patient decision aid in improving patient knowledge and their involvement in decision making. METHODS: We conducted population decisional needs assessments in a nationwide sample of patients, caregivers, community advocates, policy makers, and health care providers using qualitative interviews to identify decisional conflict, knowledge and expectations, values, support and resources, decision types, timing, stages and learning, and personal clinical characteristics. Interview transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 10. Alpha testing of the patient decision aid prototype was done to establish usability and the accuracy of the information it conveyed, and then was followed by iterative cycles of beta testing. We conducted a randomized clinical trial of adults and of caregivers of pediatric patients to evaluate the efficacy of the patient decision aid. RESULTS: In a decisional needs assessment, 223 stakeholders described their preferences, helping to guide the development of the patient decision aid, which then underwent alpha testing by 30 patients and 38 health care providers and iterative cycles of beta testing by 87 stakeholders. In a randomized clinical trial, 120 participants were assigned to either the patient decision aid or standard care (SC) arm. Qualitative interviews revealed high levels of usability, acceptability, and utility of the patient decision aid in education, values clarification, and preparation for decision making. On the acceptability survey, 72% (86/120) of participants rated the patient decision aid as good or excellent. Participants on the patient decision aid arm compared to the SC arm demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in decisional self-efficacy (P=.05) and a reduction in the informed sub-score of decisional conflict (P=.003) at 3 months, with an improvement in preparation for decision making (P<.001) at 6 months. However, there was no improvement in terms of the change in knowledge, the total or other domain scores of decisional conflicts, or decisional self-efficacies at 6 months. The large amount of missing data from survey completion limited our ability to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the patient decision aid. The patient decision aid met 61 of 62 benchmarks of the international patient decision aid collaboration standards for content, development process, and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a patient decision aid for sickle cell disease with extensive input from stakeholders and in a randomized clinical trial demonstrated its acceptability and utility in education and decision making. We were unable to demonstrate its effectiveness in improving patient knowledge and involvement in decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03224429; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03224429 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02326597; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02326597.

Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives promote many health behaviors, but effective ways to deliver health incentives remain uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned CVS Caremark employees and their relatives and friends to one of four incentive programs or to usual care for smoking cessation. Two of the incentive programs targeted individuals, and two targeted groups of six participants. One of the individual-oriented programs and one of the group-oriented programs entailed rewards of approximately $800 for smoking cessation; the others entailed refundable deposits of $150 plus $650 in reward payments for successful participants. Usual care included informational resources and free smoking-cessation aids. RESULTS: Overall, 2538 participants were enrolled. Of those assigned to reward-based programs, 90.0% accepted the assignment, as compared with 13.7% of those assigned to deposit-based programs (P<0.001). In intention-to-treat analyses, rates of sustained abstinence from smoking through 6 months were higher with each of the four incentive programs (range, 9.4 to 16.0%) than with usual care (6.0%) (P<0.05 for all comparisons); the superiority of reward-based programs was sustained through 12 months. Group-oriented and individual-oriented programs were associated with similar 6-month abstinence rates (13.7% and 12.1%, respectively; P=0.29). Reward-based programs were associated with higher abstinence rates than deposit-based programs (15.7% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001). However, in instrumental-variable analyses that accounted for differential acceptance, the rate of abstinence at 6 months was 13.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.8) higher in the deposit-based programs than in the reward-based programs among the estimated 13.7% of the participants who would accept participation in either type of program. CONCLUSIONS: Reward-based programs were much more commonly accepted than deposit-based programs, leading to higher rates of sustained abstinence from smoking. Group-oriented incentive programs were no more effective than individual-oriented programs. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and CVS Caremark; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526265.).

Heterogeneity in the Effects of Reward- and Deposit-based Financial Incentives on Smoking Cessation.

RATIONALE: Targeting different smoking cessation programs to smokers most likely to quit when using them could reduce the burden of lung disease. OBJECTIVES: To identify smokers most likely to quit using pure reward-based financial incentives or incentive programs requiring refundable deposits to become eligible for rewards. METHODS: We conducted prespecified secondary analyses of a randomized trial in which 2,538 smokers were assigned to an $800 reward contingent on sustained abstinence from smoking, a refundable $150 deposit plus a $650 reward, or usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using logistic regression, we identified characteristics of smokers that were most strongly associated with accepting their assigned intervention and ceasing smoking for 6 months. We assessed modification of the acceptance, efficacy, and effectiveness of reward and deposit programs by 11 prospectively selected demographic, smoking-related, and psychological factors. Predictors of sustained smoking abstinence differed among participants assigned to reward- versus deposit-based incentives. However, greater readiness to quit and less steep discounting of future rewards were consistently among the most important predictors. Deposit-based programs were uniquely effective relative to usual care among men, higher-income participants, and participants who more commonly failed to pay their bills (all interaction P values < 0.10). Relative to rewards, deposits were more effective among black persons (P = 0.022) and those who more commonly failed to pay their bills (P = 0.082). Relative to rewards, deposits were more commonly accepted by higher-income participants, men, white persons, and those who less commonly failed to pay their bills (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity among smokers in their acceptance and response to different forms of incentives suggests potential benefits of targeting behavior-change interventions based on patient characteristics. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01526265).

Association Between Academic Medical Center Pharmaceutical Detailing Policies and Physician Prescribing.

IMPORTANCE: In an effort to regulate physician conflicts of interest, some US academic medical centers (AMCs) enacted policies restricting pharmaceutical representative sales visits to physicians (known as detailing) between 2006 and 2012. Little is known about the effect of these policies on physician prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association between detailing policies enacted at AMCs and physician prescribing of actively detailed and not detailed drugs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study used a difference-in-differences multivariable regression analysis to compare changes in prescribing by physicians before and after implementation of detailing policies at AMCs in 5 states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York) that made up the intervention group with changes in prescribing by a matched control group of similar physicians not subject to a detailing policy. EXPOSURES: Academic medical center implementation of policies regulating pharmaceutical salesperson visits to attending physicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The monthly within-drug class market share of prescriptions written by an individual physician for detailed and nondetailed drugs in 8 drug classes (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, diabetes drugs, antihypertensive drugs, hypnotic drugs approved for the treatment of insomnia [sleep aids], attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, antidepressant drugs, and antipsychotic drugs) comparing the 10- to 36-month period before implementation of the detailing policies with the 12- to 36-month period after implementation, depending on data availability. RESULTS: The analysis included 16 121 483 prescriptions written between January 2006 and June 2012 by 2126 attending physicians at the 19 intervention group AMCs and by 24 593 matched control group physicians. The sample mean market share at the physician-drug-month level for detailed and nondetailed drugs prior to enactment of policies was 19.3% and 14.2%, respectively. Exposure to an AMC detailing policy was associated with a decrease in the market share of detailed drugs of 1.67 percentage points (95% CI, -2.18 to -1.18 percentage points; P < .001) and an increase in the market share of nondetailed drugs of 0.84 percentage points (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.14 percentage points; P < .001). Associations were statistically significant for 6 of 8 study drug classes for detailed drugs (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, antihypertensive drugs, sleep aids, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, and antidepressant drugs) and for 9 of the 19 AMCs that implemented policies. Eleven of the 19 AMCs regulated salesperson gifts to physicians, restricted salesperson access to facilities, and incorporated explicit enforcement mechanisms. For 8 of these 11 AMCs, there was a significant change in prescribing. In contrast, there was a significant change at only 1 of 8 AMCs that did not enact policies in all 3 areas. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of policies at AMCs that restricted pharmaceutical detailing between 2006 and 2012 was associated with modest but significant reductions in prescribing of detailed drugs across 6 of 8 major drug classes; however, changes were not seen in all of the AMCs that enacted policies.

A randomized trial of lottery-based incentives and reminders to improve warfarin adherence: the Warfarin Incentives (WIN2) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested that daily lottery incentives could improve medication adherence. Such daily incentives include implicit reminders. However, the comparative effectiveness of reminders alone versus daily incentives has not been tested. METHODS: A total of 270 patients on warfarin were enrolled in a four-arm, multi-center, randomized controlled trial comparing a daily lottery-based incentive, a daily reminder, and a combination of the two against a control group (usual care). RESULTS: Participants in the reminder group had the lowest percentage of time out of target international normalized ratio (INR) range, the primary outcome, with an adjusted odds of an out-of-range INR 36% lower than among those in the control group, 95%CI [7%, 55%]. No other group had a statistically significant improvement in anticoagulation control relative to the control group or to each other. The only group that had significant improvement in incorrect adherence was the lottery group (incorrect adherence: 12.1% compared with 23.7% in the control group, difference of -7.4% 95%CI [-14%, -0.3%]). However, there was no relationship between changes in adherence and anticoagulation control in the lottery group. CONCLUSIONS: Automated reminders led to the largest improvements in anticoagulation control, although without impacting measured adherence. Lottery-based reminders improved measured adherence but did not lead to improved anticoagulation control. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

You call it "self-exuberance"; I call it "bragging": miscalibrated predictions of emotional responses to self-promotion.

People engage in self-promotional behavior because they want others to hold favorable images of them. Self-promotion, however, entails a trade-off between conveying one's positive attributes and being seen as bragging. We propose that people get this trade-off wrong because they erroneously project their own feelings onto their interaction partners. As a consequence, people overestimate the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion will feel proud of and happy for them, and underestimate the extent to which recipients will feel annoyed (Experiments 1 and 2). Because people tend to promote themselves excessively when trying to make a favorable impression on others, such efforts often backfire, causing targets of self-promotion to view self-promoters as less likeable and as braggarts (Experiment 3).

Nothing to declare: mandatory and voluntary disclosure leads advisors to avoid conflicts of interest.

Professionals face conflicts of interest when they have a personal interest in giving biased advice. Mandatory disclosure--informing consumers of the conflict--is a widely adopted strategy in numerous professions, such as medicine, finance, and accounting. Prior research has shown, however, that such disclosures have little impact on consumer behavior, and can backfire by leading advisors to give even more biased advice. We present results from three experiments with real monetary stakes. These results show that, although disclosure has generally been found to be ineffective for dealing with unavoidable conflicts of interest, it can be beneficial when providers have the ability to avoid conflicts. Mandatory and voluntary disclosure can deter advisors from accepting conflicts of interest so that they have nothing to disclose except the absence of conflicts. We propose that people are averse to being viewed as biased, and that policies designed to activate reputational and ethical concerns will motivate advisors to avoid conflicts of interest.

Translating the hemoglobin A1C with more easily understood feedback: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Previous work has indicated that for patients with diabetes, there is value in understanding glycemic control. Despite these findings, patient understanding of the hemoglobin A1C value (A1C) is notably poor. In this study, we test the effect of two alternative communication formats of the A1C on improving glycemic control among patients with poorly controlled diabetes. METHODS: 177 patients with poorly controlled diabetes were randomized to one of three study arms that varied in the information they received: (1) a "diabetes report card" containing individualized information about glycemic control for each participant with letter grades ranging from A to F; (2) a "report card" containing a face whose emotion reflected current glycemic control; or (3) a "report card" with glycemic control expressed with the A1C value (standard arm). The primary study outcome was change in A1C at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in participant perceptions of their glycemic control. RESULTS: The average A1C for enrolled participants was 9.9 % (S.D. 1.7) and did not differ significantly among study arms. We noted no significant differences in change in A1C at 6 months between the standard and experimental arms. Using multiple imputation to account for missing A1C values, the changes in A1C for the letter grade, face, and standard arms were -0.55 % (-1.15, 0.05), -0.89 % (-1.49, -0.29), and -0.74 % (-1.51, 0.029), respectively (p = 0.67 for control vs. grade, p = 0.76 for control vs. face). DISCUSSION: Feedback to patients with poorly controlled diabetes in the form of letter grades and faces did not differentially impact glycemic control at 6 months or participant perceptions of current control. These efforts to improve communication and patient understanding of disease management targets need further refinement to significantly impact diabetes outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT01143870.

Financial incentives for home-based health monitoring: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Home wireless device monitoring could play an important role in improving the health of patients with poorly controlled chronic diseases, but daily engagement rates among these patients may be low. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of two different magnitudes of financial incentives for improving adherence to remote-monitoring regimens among patients with poorly controlled diabetes. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01282957). PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five patients with a hemoglobin A1c greater than or equal to 7.5% recruited from a Primary Care Medical Home practice at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. INTERVENTIONS: Twelve weeks of daily home-monitoring of blood glucose, blood pressure, and weight (control group; n = 28); a lottery incentive with expected daily value of $2.80 (n = 26) for daily monitoring; and a lottery incentive with expected daily value of $1.40 (n = 21) for daily monitoring. MAIN MEASURES: Daily use of three home-monitoring devices during the three-month intervention (primary outcome) and during the three-month follow-up period and change in A1c over the intervention period (secondary outcomes). KEY RESULTS: Incentive arm participants used devices on a higher proportion of days relative to control (81% low incentive vs. 58%, P = 0.007; 77% high incentive vs. 58%, P = 0.02) during the three-month intervention period. There was no difference in adherence between the two incentive arms (P = 0.58). When incentives were removed, adherence in the high incentive arm declined while remaining relatively high in the low incentive arm. In month 6, the low incentive arm had an adherence rate of 62% compared to 35% in the high incentive arm (P = 0.015) and 27% in the control group (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A daily lottery incentive worth $1.40 per day improved monitoring rates relative to control and had significantly better efficacy once incentives were removed than a higher incentive.

Individual- versus group-based financial incentives for weight loss: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on the effectiveness of employer-sponsored financial incentives for employee weight loss are limited. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of 2 financial incentive designs for promoting weight loss among obese employees. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01208350) SETTING: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. PARTICIPANTS: 105 employees with a body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m2. INTERVENTION: 24 weeks of monthly weigh-ins (control group; n = 35); individual incentive, designed as $100 per person per month for meeting or exceeding weight-loss goals (n = 35); and group incentive, designed as $500 per month split among participants within groups of 5 who met or exceeded weight-loss goals (n = 35). MEASUREMENTS: Weight loss after 24 weeks (primary outcome) and 36 weeks and changes in behavioral mediators of weight loss (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Group-incentive participants lost more weight than control participants (mean between-group difference, 4.4 kg [95% CI, 2.0 to 6.7 kg]; P < 0.001) and individual-incentive participants (mean between-group difference, 3.2 kg [CI, 0.9 to 5.5 kg]; P = 0.008). Twelve weeks after incentives ended and after adjustment for 3-group comparisons, group-incentive participants maintained greater weight loss than control group participants (mean between-group difference, 2.9 kg [CI, 0.5 to 5.3 kg]; P = 0.016) but not greater than individual-incentive participants (mean between-group difference, 2.7 kg [CI, 0.4 to 5.0 kg]; P = 0.024). LIMITATION: Single employer and short follow-up. CONCLUSION: A group-based financial incentive was more effective than an individual incentive and monthly weigh-ins at promoting weight loss among obese employees at 24 weeks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.