Framing Social Comparison Feedback With Financial Incentives for Physical Activity Promotion: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Social comparison feedback is often used in physical activity interventions but the optimal design of feedback is unknown. METHODS: This 4-arm, randomized trial consisted of a 13-week intervention period and 13-week follow-up period. During the intervention, 4-person teams were entered into a weekly lottery valued at about $1.40/day and contingent on the team averaging ≥7000 steps per day. Social comparison feedback on performance was delivered weekly for 26 weeks, and varied by reference point (50th vs 75th percentile) and forgiveness in use of activity data (all 7 d or best 5 of 7 d). The primary outcome was the mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000-step goal. RESULTS: During the intervention period, the unadjusted mean proportion of participant-days that the goal was achieved was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.56) in the 50th percentile arm, 0.38 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.37) in the 75th percentile arm, 0.40 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.49) in the 50th percentile with forgiveness arm, and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.38 to 0.55) in the 75th percentile with forgiveness arm. In adjusted models during the intervention and follow-up periods, there were no significant differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Changing social comparison feedback did not impact physical activity.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Lottery-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of lottery-based financial incentives in increasing physical activity. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: University of Pennsylvania Employees. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 209 adults with body mass index ≥27. INTERVENTIONS: All participants used smartphones to track activity, were given a goal of 7000 steps per day, and received daily feedback on performance for 26 weeks. Participants randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 intervention arms received a financial incentive for 13 weeks and then were followed for 13 weeks without incentives. Daily lottery incentives were designed as a "higher frequency, smaller reward" (1 in 4 chance of winning $5), "jackpot" (1 in 400 chance of winning $500), or "combined lottery" (18% chance of $5 and 1% chance of $50). MEASURES: Mean proportion of participant days step goals were achieved. ANALYSIS: Multivariate regression. RESULTS: During the intervention, the unadjusted mean proportion of participant days that goal was achieved was 0.26 in the control arm, 0.32 in the higher frequency, smaller reward lottery arm, 0.29 in the jackpot arm, and 0.38 in the combined lottery arm. In adjusted models, only the combined lottery arm was significantly greater than control ( P = .01). The jackpot arm had a significant decline of 0.13 ( P < .001) compared to control. There were no significant differences during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Combined lottery incentives were most effective in increasing physical activity.

A Randomized Trial of Social Comparison Feedback and Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of different combinations of social comparison feedback and financial incentives to increase physical activity. DESIGN: Randomized trial (Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT02030080). SETTING: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eighty-six adults. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-six weeks of weekly feedback on team performance compared to the 50th percentile (n = 100) or the 75th percentile (n = 64) and 13 weeks of weekly lottery-based financial incentive plus feedback on team performance compared to the 50th percentile (n = 80) or the 75th percentile (n = 44) followed by 13 weeks of only performance feedback. MEASURES: Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000-step goal during the 13-week intervention. ANALYSIS: Generalized linear mixed models adjusting for repeated measures and clustering by team. RESULTS: Compared to the 75th percentile without incentives during the intervention period, the mean proportion achieving the 7000-step goal was significantly greater for the 50th percentile with incentives group (0.45 vs 0.27, difference: 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04 to 0.32; P = .012) but not for the 75th percentile with incentives group (0.38 vs 0.27, difference: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.27; P = .19) or the 50th percentile without incentives group (0.30 vs 0.27, difference: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.16; P = .67). CONCLUSION: Social comparison to the 50th percentile with financial incentives was most effective for increasing physical activity.

Individual Versus Team-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: More than half of adults in the United States do not attain the minimum recommended level of physical activity to achieve health benefits. The optimal design of financial incentives to promote physical activity is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of individual versus team-based financial incentives to increase physical activity. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial comparing three interventions to control. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and four adult employees from an organization in Philadelphia formed 76 four-member teams. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received daily feedback on performance towards achieving a daily 7000 step goal during the intervention (weeks 1- 13) and follow-up (weeks 14- 26) periods. The control arm received no other intervention. In the three financial incentive arms, drawings were held in which one team was selected as the winner every other day during the 13-week intervention. A participant on a winning team was eligible as follows: $50 if he or she met the goal (individual incentive), $50 only if all four team members met the goal (team incentive), or $20 if he or she met the goal individually and $10 more for each of three teammates that also met the goal (combined incentive). MAIN MEASURES: Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000 step goal during the intervention. KEY RESULTS: Compared to the control group during the intervention period, the mean proportion achieving the 7000 step goal was significantly greater for the combined incentive (0.35 vs. 0.18, difference: 0.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-0.28, p <0.001) but not for the individual incentive (0.25 vs 0.18, difference: 0.08, 95 % CI: -0.02-0.18, p = 0.13) or the team incentive (0.17 vs 0.18, difference: -0.003, 95 % CI: -0.11-0.10, p = 0.96). The combined incentive arm participants also achieved the goal at significantly greater rates than the team incentive (0.35 vs. 0.17, difference: 0.18, 95 % CI: 0.08-0.28, p < 0.001), but not the individual incentive (0.35 vs. 0.25, difference: 0.10, 95 % CI: -0.001-0.19, p = 0.05). Only the combined incentive had greater mean daily steps than control (difference: 1446, 95 % CI: 448-2444, p ≤ 0.005). There were no significant differences between arms during the follow-up period (weeks 14- 26). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives rewarded for a combination of individual and team performance were most effective for increasing physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02001194.

Framing Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive designs to increase physical activity have not been well-examined. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of 3 methods to frame financial incentives to increase physical activity among overweight and obese adults. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 02030119). SETTING: University of Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: 281 adult employees (body mass index ≥27 kg/m2). INTERVENTION: 13-week intervention. Participants had a goal of 7000 steps per day and were randomly assigned to a control group with daily feedback or 1 of 3 financial incentive programs with daily feedback: a gain incentive ($1.40 given each day the goal was achieved), lottery incentive (daily eligibility [expected value approximately $1.40] if goal was achieved), or loss incentive ($42 allocated monthly upfront and $1.40 removed each day the goal was not achieved). Participants were followed for another 13 weeks with daily performance feedback but no incentives. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was the mean proportion of participant-days that the 7000-step goal was achieved during the intervention. Secondary outcomes included the mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal during follow-up and the mean daily steps during intervention and follow-up. RESULTS: The mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.37) in the control group, 0.35 (CI, 0.28 to 0.42) in the gain-incentive group, 0.36 (CI, 0.29 to 0.43) in the lottery-incentive group, and 0.45 (CI, 0.38 to 0.52) in the loss-incentive group. In adjusted analyses, only the loss-incentive group had a significantly greater mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal than control (adjusted difference, 0.16 [CI, 0.06 to 0.26]; P = 0.001), but the adjusted difference in mean daily steps was not significant (861 [CI, 24 to 1746]; P = 0.056). During follow-up, daily steps decreased for all incentive groups and were not different from control. LIMITATION: Single employer. CONCLUSION: Financial incentives framed as a loss were most effective for achieving physical activity goals. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Web-Based Access to Positive Airway Pressure Usage with or without an Initial Financial Incentive Improves Treatment Use in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: We tested whether providing adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with daily Web-based access to their positive airway pressure (PAP) usage over 3 mo with or without a financial incentive in the first week improves adherence and functional outcomes. SETTING: Academic- and community-based sleep centers. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-eight adults with newly diagnosed OSA starting PAP treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to: usual care, usual care with access to PAP usage, or usual care with access to PAP usage and a financial incentive. PAP data were transmitted daily by wireless modem from the participants' PAP unit to a website where hours of usage were displayed. Participants in the financial incentive group could earn up to $30/day in the first week for objective PAP use ≥ 4 h/day. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Mean hours of daily PAP use in the two groups with access to PAP usage data did not differ from each other but was significantly greater than that in the usual care group in the first week and over 3 mo (P < 0.0001). Average daily use (mean ± standard deviation) during the first week of PAP intervention was 4.7 ± 3.3 h in the usual care group, and 5.9 ± 2.5 h and 6.3 ± 2.5 h in the Web access groups with and without financial incentive respectively. Adherence over the 3-mo intervention decreased at a relatively constant rate in all three groups. Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire change scores at 3 mo improved within each group (P < 0.0001) but change scores of the two groups with Web access to PAP data were not different than those in the control group (P > 0.124). CONCLUSIONS: Positive airway pressure adherence is significantly improved by giving patients Web access to information about their use of the treatment. Inclusion of a financial incentive in the first week had no additive effect in improving adherence.