Effect of Gamification, Financial Incentives, or Both to Increase Physical Activity Among Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events: The BE ACTIVE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but few individuals achieve guideline-recommended levels of physical activity. Strategies informed by behavioral economics increase physical activity, but their longer-term effectiveness is uncertain. We sought to determine the effect of behaviorally designed gamification, loss-framed financial incentives, or their combination on physical activity compared with attention control over 12-month intervention and 6-month postintervention follow-up periods. METHODS: Between May 2019 and January 2024, participants with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death of ≥7.5% by the Pooled Cohort equation were enrolled in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. Participants received a wearable device to track daily steps, established a baseline, selected a step goal increase, and were randomly assigned to control (n=151), behaviorally designed gamification (n=304), loss-framed financial incentives (n=302), or gamification+financial incentives (n=305). The primary outcome of the trial was the change in mean daily steps from baseline through the 12-month intervention period. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients (mean±SD age, 67±8; 61% female; 31% non-White) were enrolled. Compared with control subjects, participants had significantly greater increases in mean daily steps from baseline during the 12-month intervention in the gamification arm (adjusted difference, 538.0 [95% CI, 186.2-889.9]; P=0.0027), financial incentives arm (adjusted difference, 491.8 [95% CI, 139.6-844.1]; P=0.0062), and gamification+financial incentives arm (adjusted difference, 868.0 [95% CI, 516.3-1219.7]; P<0.0001). During the 6-month follow-up, physical activity remained significantly greater in the gamification+financial incentives arm than in the control arm (adjusted difference, 576.2 [95% CI, 198.5-954]; P=0.0028), but it was not significantly greater in the gamification (adjusted difference, 459.8 [95% CI, 82.0-837.6]; P=0.0171) or financial incentives (adjusted difference, 327.9 [95% CI, -50.2 to 706]; P=0.09) arms after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviorally designed gamification, loss-framed financial incentives, and the combination of both increased physical activity compared with control over a 12-month intervention period, with the largest effect in gamification+financial incentives. These interventions could be a useful component of strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03911141.

Gamification-augmented home-based exercise for peripheral artery disease: Rationale and design of the GAMEPAD Study.

BACKGROUND: Supervised exercise therapy improves walking performance, functional capacity, and quality of life in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, few patients with PAD are enrolled in supervised exercise programs, and there are a number of logistical and financial barriers to their participation. A home-based walking intervention is likely to be more accessible to patients with PAD, but no fully home-based walking program has demonstrated efficacy. Concepts from behavioral economics have been used to design scalable interventions that increase daily physical activity in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, but whether a similar program would be effective in patients with PAD is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: GAMEPAD (NCT04536012) is a pragmatic, virtual, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a gamification strategy informed by concepts from behavioral economics to increase daily physical activity in patients with PAD who are seen in cardiology and vascular surgery clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Patients are contacted by email or text message, and complete enrollment and informed consent on the Penn Way to Health online platform. A GAMEPAD substudy will evaluate the effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out framing when approaching patients for study participation. Patients are then provided with a wearable fitness tracker, establish a baseline daily step count, set a goal to increase daily step count by 33%-50%, and are randomized 1:1 to the gamification or control arms. Interventions continue for 16 weeks, including a 4-week period during which goal step count is gradually increased in the gamification arm, with follow-up for an additional 8 weeks to evaluate the durability of behavior change. The trial has met its enrollment goal of 102 participants, with a primary endpoint of change from baseline in daily steps over the 16-week intervention period. Key secondary endpoints include change from baseline in daily steps over the 8-week postintervention follow-up period and changes in patient-reported measures of PAD symptoms and quality of life over the intervention and follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: GAMEPAD is a virtual, pragmatic randomized clinical trial of a novel, fully home-based walking intervention informed by concepts from behavioral economics to increase physical activity and PAD-specific quality of life in patients with PAD. Its results will have important implications for the application of behavioral economic concepts to scalable home-based strategies to promote physical activity in patients with PAD and other disease processes where physical activity is limited by exertional symptoms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04536012.

Effect of gamification with a support partner to increase physical activity in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease: The STEP 4Life randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity is associated with reduced risk of cognitive and functional decline but scalable, sustainable interventions for populations at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD and related dementias (ADRD) are lacking. METHODS: A 12-week randomized-controlled trial was conducted with a 3-week follow-up using a national AD prevention registry (GeneMatch). The control group (n = 50) set step goals and received daily feedback. The intervention group (n = 44) also received a behaviorally designed game based on achieving step goals and reinforced by a support partner. RESULTS: Intervention participants (94 participants, mean age 70, 78% female) had greater change in mean daily step count than control of 1699 steps/day (95% confidence interval [CI], 1149-2249), P < 0.0001, which was sustained in the follow-up period at 1219 steps/day (95% CI, 455-1983), P = 0.0018. Carriers of the apolipoprotein E ε4 gene (high risk) did not perform differently than non-carriers; however, high self-reported risk perception was associated with higher activity. DISCUSSION: A gamified intervention was effective in promoting and sustaining higher physical activity in older adults at genetic risk for AD/ADRD. HIGHLIGHTS: A simple game played with a support partner increased walking in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The game also increased minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Perception of lifelong AD risk was associated with increased activity but genetic risk (apolipoprotein E ε4+) was not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05069155.

A randomized controlled trial of gamification, financial incentives, or both to increase physical activity among patients with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease: rationale and design of the be active study.

BACKGROUND: Higher levels of physical activity are associated with improvements in cardiovascular health, and consensus guidelines recommend that individuals with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) participate in regular physical activity. However, most adults do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. Concepts from behavioral economics have been used to design scalable interventions that increase physical activity over short time periods, but the longer-term efficacy of these strategies is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: BE ACTIVE (NCT03911141) is a pragmatic, virtual, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of 3 strategies informed by behavioral economic concepts to increase daily physical activity in patients with established ASCVD or 10-year ASCVD risk > 7.5% who are seen in primary care and cardiology clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Patients are contacted by email or text message, and complete enrollment and informed consent on the Penn Way to Health online platform. Patients are then provided with a wearable fitness tracker, establish a baseline daily step count, set a goal to increase daily step count by 33% to 50%, and are randomized 1:2:2:2 to control, gamification, financial incentives, or both gamification and financial incentives. Interventions continue for 12 months, with follow-up for an additional 6 months to evaluate the durability of behavior change. The trial has met its enrollment goal of 1050 participants, with a primary endpoint of change from baseline in daily steps over the 12-month intervention period. Key secondary endpoints include change from baseline in daily steps over the 6-month post-intervention follow-up period and change in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the intervention and follow-up periods. If the interventions prove effective, their effects on life expectancy will be compared with their costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: BE ACTIVE is a virtual, pragmatic randomized clinical trial powered to demonstrate whether gamification, financial incentives, or both are superior to attention control in increasing physical activity. Its results will have important implications for strategies to promote physical activity in patients with or at risk for ASCVD, as well as for the design and implementation of pragmatic virtual clinical trials within health systems.

Social Incentives and Gamification to Promote Weight Loss: The LOSE IT Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Social networks influence obesity patterns, but interventions to leverage social incentives to promote weight loss have not been well evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of gamification interventions designed using insights from behavioral economics to enhance social incentives to promote weight loss. DESIGN: The Leveraging Our Social Experiences and Incentives Trial (LOSE IT) was a 36-week randomized, controlled trial with a 24-week intervention and 12-week follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety-six obese adults (body mass index ≥ 30) comprising 98 two-person teams. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a wireless weight scale, used smartphones to track daily step counts, formed two-person teams with a family member or friend, and selected a weight loss goal. Teams were randomly assigned to control or one of two gamification interventions for 36 weeks that used points and levels to enhance collaborative social incentives. One of the gamification arms also had weight and step data shared regularly with each participant's primary care physician (PCP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was weight loss at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included weight loss at 36 weeks. KEY RESULTS: At 24 weeks, participants lost significant weight from baseline in the control arm (mean: - 3.9 lbs; 95% CI: - 6.1 to - 1.7; P < 0.001), the gamification arm (mean: - 6.6 lbs; 95% CI: - 9.4 to - 3.9; P < 0.001), and the gamification arm with PCP data sharing (mean: - 4.8 lbs; 95% CI: - 7.4 to - 2.3; P < 0.001). At 36 weeks, weight loss from baseline remained significant in the control arm (mean: - 3.5 lbs; 95% CI: - 6.1 to - 0.8; P = 0.01), the gamification arm (mean: - 6.3 lbs; 95% CI: - 9.2 to - 3.3; P < 0.001), and the gamification arm with PCP data sharing (mean: - 5.2 lbs; 95% CI: - 8.5 to - 2.0; P < 0.01). However, in the main adjusted model, there were no significant differences in weight loss between each of the intervention arms and control at either 12, 24, or 36 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Using digital health devices to track behavior with a partner led to significant weight loss through 36 weeks, but the gamification interventions were not effective at promoting weight loss when compared to control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: 02564445.

Long-term Effect of Machine Learning-Triggered Behavioral Nudges on Serious Illness Conversations and End-of-Life Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Serious illness conversations (SICs) between oncology clinicians and patients are associated with improved quality of life and may reduce aggressive end-of-life care. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Objective: To test the impact of behavioral nudges to clinicians to prompt SICs on the SIC rate and end-of-life outcomes among patients at high risk of death within 180 days (high-risk patients) as identified by a machine learning algorithm. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified 40-week analysis of a stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial conducted between June 17, 2019, and April 20, 2020 (including 16 weeks of intervention rollout and 24 weeks of follow-up), included 20 506 patients with cancer representing 41 021 encounters at 9 tertiary or community-based medical oncology clinics in a large academic health system. The current analyses were conducted from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Intervention: High-risk patients were identified using a validated electronic health record machine learning algorithm to predict 6-month mortality. The intervention consisted of (1) weekly emails to clinicians comparing their SIC rates for all patients against peers' rates, (2) weekly lists of high-risk patients, and (3) opt-out text messages to prompt SICs before encounters with high-risk patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was SIC rates for all and high-risk patient encounters; secondary end-of-life outcomes among decedents included inpatient death, hospice enrollment and length of stay, and intensive care unit admission and systemic therapy close to death. Intention-to-treat analyses were adjusted for clinic and wedge fixed effects and clustered at the oncologist level. Results: The study included 20 506 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [14.0] years) and 41 021 patient encounters: 22 259 (54%) encounters with female patients, 28 907 (70.5%) with non-Hispanic White patients, and 5520 (13.5%) with high-risk patients; 1417 patients (6.9%) died by the end of follow-up. There were no meaningful differences in demographic characteristics in the control and intervention periods. Among high-risk patient encounters, the unadjusted SIC rates were 3.4% (59 of 1754 encounters) in the control period and 13.5% (510 of 3765 encounters) in the intervention period. In adjusted analyses, the intervention was associated with increased SICs for all patients (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09 [95% CI, 1.53-2.87]; P < .001) and decreased end-of-life systemic therapy (7.5% [72 of 957 patients] vs 10.4% [24 of 231 patients]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.11-0.57]; P = .001) relative to controls, but there was no effect on hospice enrollment or length of stay, inpatient death, or end-of-life ICU use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a machine learning-based behavioral intervention and behavioral nudges to clinicans led to an increase in SICs and reduction in end-of-life systemic therapy but no changes in other end-of-life outcomes among outpatients with cancer. These results suggest that machine learning and behavioral nudges can lead to long-lasting improvements in cancer care delivery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984773.

How Physician Self-Perceptions Affect the Impact of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing.

Peer comparison feedback is a promising strategy for reducing opioid prescribing and opioid-related harms. Such comparisons may be particularly impactful among underestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as high prescribers relative to their peers. But peer comparisons could also unintentionally increase prescribing among overestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as lower prescribers than peers. The objective of this study was to assess if the impact of peer comparisons varied by clinicians' preexisting opioid prescribing self-perceptions. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial of peer comparison interventions among emergency department and urgent care clinicians was used. Generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess whether the impact of peer comparisons, alone or combined with individual feedback, varied by underestimating or overestimating prescriber status. Underestimating and overestimating prescribers were defined as those who self-reported relative prescribing amounts that were lower and higher, respectively, than actual relative baseline amounts. The primary outcome was pills per opioid prescription. Among 438 clinicians, 54% (n = 236) provided baseline prescribing self-perceptions and were included in this analysis. Overall, 17% (n = 40) were underestimating prescribers whereas 5% (n = 11) were overestimating prescribers. Underestimating prescribers exhibited a differentially greater decrease in pills per prescription compared to nonunderestimating clinicians when receiving peer comparison feedback (1.7 pills, 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (2.8 pills, 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.8 pills). In contrast, there were no differential changes in pills per prescription for overestimating versus nonoverestimating prescribers after receiving peer comparison (1.5 pills, 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.9 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (3.0 pills, 95% CI, -0.3 to 6.2 pills). Peer comparisons were more impactful among clinicians who underestimated their prescribing compared to peers. By correcting inaccurate self-perceptions, peer comparison feedback can be an effective strategy for influencing opioid prescribing.

Effect of a Default Order vs an Alert in the Electronic Health Record on Hepatitis C Virus Screening Among Hospitalized Patients: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening has been recommended for patients born between 1945 and 1965, but rates remain low. Objective: To evaluate whether a default order within the admission order set increases HCV screening compared with a preexisting alert within the electronic health record. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 23, 2020, to April 10, 2021, at 2 hospitals within an academic medical center. Hospitalized patients born between 1945 and 1965 with no history of screening were included in the analysis. Interventions: During wedge 1 (a preintervention period), both hospital sites had an electronic alert prompting clinicians to consider HCV screening. During wedge 2, the first intervention wedge, the hospital site randomized to intervention (hospital B) had a default order for HCV screening implemented within the admission order set. During wedge 3, the second intervention wedge, the hospital site randomized to control (hospital A) had the default order set implemented. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of eligible patients who received HCV screening during the hospital stay. Results: The study included 7634 patients (4405 in the control group and 3229 in the intervention group). The mean (SD) age was 65.4 (5.8) years; 4246 patients (55.6%) were men; 2142 (28.1%) were Black and 4625 (60.6%) were White; and 2885 (37.8%) had commercial insurance and 3950 (51.7%) had Medicare. The baseline rate of HCV screening in wedge 1 was 585 of 1560 patients (37.5% [95% CI, 35.1%-40.0%]) in hospital A and 309 of 1003 patients (30.8% [95% CI, 27.9%-33.7%]) in hospital B. The main adjusted model showed an increase of 31.8 (95% CI, 29.7-33.8) percentage points in test completion in the intervention group compared with the control group (P <. 001). Conclusions and Relevance: This stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial found that embedding HCV screening as a default order in the electronic health record substantially increased ordering and completion of testing in the hospital compared with a conventional interruptive alert. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04525690.

The Effect Of Clinician Feedback Interventions On Opioid Prescribing.

An initial opioid prescription with a greater number of pills is associated with a greater risk for future long-term opioid use, yet few interventions have reliably influenced individual clinicians' prescribing. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of feedback interventions for clinicians in reducing opioid prescribing. The interventions included feedback on a clinician's outlier prescribing (individual audit feedback), peer comparison, and both interventions combined. We conducted a four-arm factorial pragmatic cluster randomized trial at forty-eight emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) sites in the western US, including 263 ED and 175 UC clinicians with 294,962 patient encounters. Relative to usual care, there was a significant decrease in pills per prescription both for peer comparison feedback (-0.8) and for the combination of peer comparison and individual audit feedback (-1.2). This decrease was sustained during follow-up. There were no significant changes for individual audit feedback alone, and no interventions changed the proportion of encounters with an opioid prescription.

Effect of Goal-Setting Approaches Within a Gamification Intervention to Increase Physical Activity Among Economically Disadvantaged Adults at Elevated Risk for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: The ENGAGE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Health promotion efforts commonly communicate goals for healthy behavior, but the best way to design goal setting among high-risk patients has not been well examined. Objective: To test the effectiveness of different ways to set and implement goals within a behaviorally designed gamification intervention to increase physical activity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Evaluation of the Novel Use of Gamification With Alternative Goal-setting Experiences was conducted from January 15, 2019, to June 1, 2020. The 24-week randomized clinical trial included a remotely monitored 8-week introductory intervention period, 8-week maintenance intervention period, and 8-week follow-up period. A total of 500 adults from lower-income neighborhoods in and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who had either an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) condition or a 10-year ASCVD risk score greater than or equal to 7.5% were enrolled. Participants were paid for enrolling in and completing the trial. Interventions: All participants used a wearable device to track daily steps, established a baseline level, and were then randomly assigned to an attention control or 1 of 4 gamification interventions that varied only on how daily step goals were set (self-chosen or assigned) and implemented (immediately or gradually). Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was change in mean daily steps from baseline to the 8-week maintenance intervention period. Other outcomes included changes in minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity. All randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Of the 500 participants, 331 individuals (66.2%) were Black, 114 were White (22.8%), and 348 were women (69.6%). Mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.8) years and body mass index was 33.2 (7.8). A total of 215 participants (43.0%) had an ASCVD condition. Compared with the control arm, participants with self-chosen and immediate goals had significant increases in the number of daily steps during the maintenance intervention period (1384; 95% CI, 805-1963; P < .001) that were sustained during the 8-week follow-up (1391; 95% CI, 785-1998; P < .001). This group also had significant increases in daily minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity during the maintenance intervention (4.1; 95% CI, 1.8-6.4; P < .001) that were sustained during follow-up (3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.8; P = .004). No other gamification arms had consistent increases in physical activity compared with the control arm. No major adverse events were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial among economically disadvantaged adults at elevated risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, a gamification intervention led to increases in physical activity that were sustained during 8 weeks of follow-up when goals were self-chosen and implemented immediately. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03749473.

Effect of Behaviorally Designed Gamification With a Social Support Partner to Increase Mobility After Hospital Discharge: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalization is associated with decreased mobility and functional decline. Behaviorally designed gamification can increase mobility in community settings but has not been tested among patients at risk for functional decline during a high-risk transition period after hospitalization. Objective: To test a behaviorally designed gamification intervention with a social support partner to increase patient mobility after hospital discharge. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a randomized clinical trial of a 12-week intervention without follow-up. Enrollment occurred from January 2018 to June 2019 at a referral hospital with a remote at-home monitoring intervention among patients living predominantly in 3 states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware). Participants included adult patients discharged from general medicine and oncology units to home. Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to March 2020. Interventions: All participants received a wearable device to track daily steps. The control group received feedback from the device but no other interventions. The intervention group entered into a 12-week game informed by behavioral economics to assign points and levels for achieving step goals and reinforced by a support partner who received updates on participant progress. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in mean daily steps from baseline through the 12-week intervention. Secondary measures were change in functional status and urgent care utilization (ie, emergency department visits and hospital readmissions) within this period. Results: A total of 232 participants were enrolled in the study (118 randomized to control and 114 randomized to the intervention). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 40 (14) years, 141 (61%) were female, 101 (43%) were White, and 103 (44%) had an annual household income less than $50 000. Daily step counts increased from 3795 to 4652 steps (difference, 857 steps; 95% CI, 488 to 1224 steps) among intervention participants and increased from 3951 to 4499 steps (difference, 548 steps; 95% CI, 193 to 903 steps) among control participants. The change in mean daily step count from baseline was not significantly different for participants in the intervention group vs the control group (adjusted difference, 270 steps; 95% CI, -214 to 754 steps; P = .27). Among the subgroup of 76 participants with higher levels of social engagement, post hoc exploratory analyses showed a significant increase in mobility for intervention vs control (adjusted difference, 1125 steps; 95% CI, 409 to 1841 steps; P = .002). Fewer participants in this subgroup experienced functional decline (1 of 36 participants [4%] in the intervention group vs 5 of 40 participants [12%] in the control group) and hospital readmission at 30 days (3 of 36 participants [8%] in the intervention group vs 6 of 40 participants [15%] in the control group), but the differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in these secondary outcomes for the overall sample. Conclusions and Relevance: Gamification with social incentives did not affect mobility or functional decline in all participants, but post hoc analysis suggests positive findings for both outcomes for patients with higher social engagement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03321279.

Effect of Behaviorally Designed Gamification With Social Incentives on Lifestyle Modification Among Adults With Uncontrolled Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Gamification is increasingly being used to promote healthy behaviors. However, it has not been well tested among patients with chronic conditions and over longer durations. Objective: To test the effectiveness of behaviorally designed gamification interventions to enhance support, collaboration, or competition to promote physical activity and weight loss among adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 4-arm randomized clinical trial with a 1-year intervention was conducted from January 23, 2017, to January 27, 2020, with remotely monitored intervention. Analyses were conducted between February 10 and October 6, 2020. Participants included 361 adults with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels greater than or equal to 8% and body mass index greater than or equal to 25. Interventions: All participants received a wearable device, smart weight scale, and laboratory testing. Participants in the control group received feedback from their devices but no other interventions. Participants in the gamification arms conducted goal setting and were entered into a 1-year game designed using insights from behavioral economics with points and levels for achieving step goals and weight loss targets. The game varied by trial arm to promote either support, collaboration, or competition. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary outcomes included daily step count, weight, and hemoglobin A1c level. Secondary outcome was low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. Results: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 52.5 (10.1) years; hemoglobin A1c level, 9.6% (1.6%); daily steps, 4632 (2523); weight, 107.4 kg (20.8 kg); and body mass index, 37.1 (6.6). Of the 361 participants, 202 (56.0%) were women, 143 (39.6%) were White, and 185 (51.2%) were Black; with 87 (24.1%) randomized to control; 92 (25.4%) randomized to gamification with support and intervention; 95 (26.3%) randomized to gamification with collaboration; and 87 (24.1%) randomized to gamification with competition. Compared with the control group over 1 year, there was a significant increase in mean daily steps from baseline among participants receiving gamification with support (adjusted difference relative to control group, 503 steps; 95% CI, 103 to 903 steps; P = .01) and competition (606 steps; 95% CI, 201 to 1011 steps; P = .003) but not collaboration (280 steps; 95% CI, -115 to 674 steps; P = .16). All trial arms had significant reductions in weight and hemoglobin A1c levels from baseline, but there were no significant differences between any of the intervention arms and the control arm. There was only 1 adverse event reported that may have been related to the trial (arthritic knee pain). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, a behaviorally designed gamification intervention in this randomized clinical trial significantly increased physical activity over a 1-year period when designed to enhance either support or competition but not collaboration. No differences between intervention and control groups were found for other outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02961192.

Effect of Passive Choice and Active Choice Interventions in the Electronic Health Record to Cardiologists on Statin Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Statin therapy is underused for many patients who could benefit. Objective: To evaluate the effect of passive choice and active choice interventions in the electronic health record (EHR) to promote guideline-directed statin therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-arm randomized clinical trial with a 6-month preintervention period and 6-month intervention. Randomization conducted at the cardiologist level at 16 cardiology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The study included 82 cardiologists and 11 693 patients. Data were analyzed between May 8, 2019, and January 9, 2020. Interventions: In passive choice, cardiologists had to manually access an alert embedded in the EHR to select options to initiate or increase statin therapy. In active choice, an interruptive EHR alert prompted the cardiologist to accept or decline guideline-directed statin therapy. Cardiologists in the control group were informed of the trial but received no other interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was statin therapy at optimal dose based on clinical guidelines. Secondary outcome was statin therapy at any dose. Results: The sample comprised 11 693 patients with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (9.1) years; 58% were male (n = 6749 of 11 693), 66% were White (n = 7683 of 11 693), and 24% were Black (n = 2824 of 11 693). The mean (SD) 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score was 15.4 (10.0); 68% had an ASVCD clinical diagnosis. Baseline statin prescribing rates at the optimal dose were 40.3% in the control arm, 39.1% in the passive choice arm, and 41.2% in the active choice arm. In adjusted analyses, the change in statin prescribing rates at optimal dose over time was not significantly different from control for passive choice (adjusted difference in percentage points, 0.2; 95% CI, -2.9 to 2.8; P = .86) or active choice (adjusted difference in percentage points, 2.4; 95% CI, -0.6 to 5.0; P = .08). In adjusted analyses of the subset of patients with clinical ASCVD, the active choice intervention resulted in a significant increase in statin prescribing at optimal dose relative to control (adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.0-6.4; P = .008). No other subset analyses were significant. There were no significant changes in statin prescribing at any dose for either intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: The passive choice and active choice interventions did not change statin prescribing. In the subgroup of patients with clinical ASCVD, the active choice intervention led to a small increase in statin prescribing at the optimal dose, which could inform the design or targeting of future interventions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03271931.

Usability of Wearable Devices to Remotely Monitor Sleep Patterns Among Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using wearable devices to remotely monitor patient behaviors. However, there has been little evaluation of how often these technologies are used to monitor sleep patterns over longer term periods, particularly among more high-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to evaluate the proportion of time that patients with ischemic heart disease used wearable devices to monitor their sleep and identify differences in characteristics of patients with higher versus lower use. METHODS: We evaluated wearable device data from a previously conducted clinical trial testing the use of wearable devices with personalized goal-setting and financial incentives. Patients with ischemic heart disease established a sleep baseline and were then followed for 24 weeks. The proportion of days that sleep data was collected was compared over the 24 weeks and by study arm. Characteristics of patients were compared to groups with high, low, or no sleep data. RESULTS: The sample comprised 99 patients with ischemic heart disease, among which 79% (78/99) used the wearable device to track their sleep. During the 6-month trial, sleep data were collected on 60% (10,024/16,632) of patient-days. These rates declined over time from 77% (4292/5544) in months 1 and 2 to 58% (3188/5544) in months 3 and 4 to 46% (2544/5544) in months 5 and 6. Sleep data were collected at higher rates among the intervention group compared with control (67% vs 55%, P<.001). In the main intervention period (months 3 and 4), patients with higher rates of sleep data were on average older (P=.03), had a history of smoking (P=.007), and had higher rates of commercial health insurance (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ischemic heart disease in a physical activity trial, a high proportion used wearable devices to track their sleep; however, rates declined over time. Future research should consider larger evaluations coupled with behavioral interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02531022; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02531022.

Phenotyping physician practice patterns and associations with response to a nudge in the electronic health record for influenza vaccination: A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Health systems routinely implement changes to the design of electronic health records (EHRs). Physician behavior may vary in response and methods to identify this variation could help to inform future interventions. The objective of this study was to phenotype primary care physician practice patterns and evaluate associations with response to an EHR nudge for influenza vaccination. METHODS AND FINDINGS: During the 2016-2017 influenza season, 3 primary care practices at Penn Medicine implemented an active choice intervention in the EHR that prompted medical assistants to template influenza vaccination orders for physicians to review during the visit. We used latent class analysis to identify physician phenotypes based on 9 demographic, training, and practice pattern variables, which were obtained from the EHR and publicly available sources. A quasi-experimental approach was used to evaluate response to the intervention relative to control practices over time in each of the physician phenotype groups. For each physician latent class, a generalized linear model with logit link was fit to the binary outcome of influenza vaccination at the patient visit level. The sample comprised 45,410 patients with a mean (SD) age of 58.7 (16.3) years, 67.1% were white, and 22.1% were black. The sample comprised 56 physicians with mean (SD) of 24.6 (10.2) years of experience and 53.6% were male. The model segmented physicians into groups that had higher (n = 41) and lower (n = 15) clinical workloads. Physicians in the higher clinical workload group had a mean (SD) of 818.8 (429.1) patient encounters, 11.6 (4.7) patient appointments per day, and 4.0 (1.1) days per week in clinic. Physicians in the lower clinical workload group had a mean (SD) of 343.7 (129.0) patient encounters, 8.0 (2.8) patient appointments per day, and 3.1 (1.2) days per week in clinic. Among the higher clinical workload group, the EHR nudge was associated with a significant increase in influenza vaccination (adjusted difference-in-difference in percentage points, 7.9; 95% CI, 0.4-9.0; P = .01). Among the lower clinical workload group, the EHR nudge was not associated with a significant difference in influenza vaccination rates (adjusted difference-in-difference in percentage points, -1.0; 95% CI, -5.3-5.8; P = .90). CONCLUSIONS: A model-based approach categorized physician practice patterns into higher and lower clinical workload groups. The higher clinical workload group was associated with a significant response to an EHR nudge for influenza vaccination.

Association between behavioral phenotypes and response to a physical activity intervention using gamification and social incentives: Secondary analysis of the STEP UP randomized clinical trial.

Participants often vary in their response to behavioral interventions, but methods to identify groups of participants that are more likely to respond are lacking. In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, we used baseline characteristics to group participants into distinct behavioral phenotypes and evaluated differential responses to a physical activity intervention. Latent class analysis was used to segment participants based on baseline participant data including demographics, validated measures of psychosocial variables, and physical activity behavior. The trial included 602 adults from 40 U.S. states with body mass index ≥25 who were randomized to control or one of three gamification interventions (supportive, collaborative, or competitive) to increase physical activity. Daily step counts were monitored using a wearable device for a 24-week intervention with 12 weeks of follow-up. The model segmented participants into three classes named for key defining traits: Class 1, extroverted and motivated; Class 2, less active and less social; Class 3, less motivated and at-risk. Adjusted regression models were used to test for differences in intervention response relative to control within each behavioral phenotype. In Class 1, only participants in the competitive arm increased their mean daily steps during the intervention (adjusted difference, 945; 95% CI, 352-1537; P = .002), but it was not sustained during follow-up. In Class 2, participants in all three gamification arms significantly increased their mean daily steps compared to control during the intervention (supportive arm adjusted difference 1172; 95% CI, 363-1980; P = .005; collaborative arm adjusted difference 1119; 95% CI, 319-1919; P = .006; competitive arm adjusted difference 1179; 95% CI, 400-1957; P = .003) and all three had sustained impact during follow-up. In Class 3, none of the interventions had a significant effect on physical activity. Three behavioral phenotypes were identified, each with a different response to the interventions. This approach could be used to better target behavioral interventions to participants that are more likely to respond to them.

Effect of Integrating Machine Learning Mortality Estimates With Behavioral Nudges to Clinicians on Serious Illness Conversations Among Patients With Cancer: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Serious illness conversations (SICs) are structured conversations between clinicians and patients about prognosis, treatment goals, and end-of-life preferences. Interventions that increase the rate of SICs between oncology clinicians and patients may improve goal-concordant care and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a clinician-directed intervention integrating machine learning mortality predictions with behavioral nudges on motivating clinician-patient SICs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted across 20 weeks (from June 17 to November 1, 2019) at 9 medical oncology clinics (8 subspecialty oncology and 1 general oncology clinics) within a large academic health system in Pennsylvania. Clinicians at the 2 smallest subspecialty clinics were grouped together, resulting in 8 clinic groups randomly assigned to the 4 intervention wedge periods. Included participants in the intention-to-treat analyses were 78 oncology clinicians who received SIC training and their patients (N = 14 607) who had an outpatient oncology encounter during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Weekly emails to oncology clinicians with SIC performance feedback and peer comparisons; (2) a list of up to 6 high-risk patients (≥10% predicted risk of 180-day mortality) scheduled for the next week, estimated using a validated machine learning algorithm; and (3) opt-out text message prompts to clinicians on the patient's appointment day to consider an SIC. Clinicians in the control group received usual care consisting of weekly emails with cumulative SIC performance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Percentage of patient encounters with an SIC in the intervention group vs the usual care (control) group. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 78 clinicians and 14 607 patients. The mean (SD) age of patients was 61.9 (14.2) years, 53.7% were female, and 70.4% were White. For all encounters, SICs were conducted among 1.3% in the control group and 4.6% in the intervention group, a significant difference (adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.3-4.5; P < .001). Among 4124 high-risk patient encounters, SICs were conducted among 3.6% in the control group and 15.2% in the intervention group, a significant difference (adjusted difference in percentage points, 11.6; 95% CI, 8.2-12.5; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial, an intervention that delivered machine learning mortality predictions with behavioral nudges to oncology clinicians significantly increased the rate of SICs among all patients and among patients with high mortality risk who were targeted by the intervention. Behavioral nudges combined with machine learning mortality predictions can positively influence clinician behavior and may be applied more broadly to improve care near the end of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984773.