Mitesh S Patel1,2,3,4,5, David A Asch6,7,8,9,10, Roy Rosin9, Dylan S Small7, Scarlett L Bellamy6, Kimberly Eberbach11, Karen J Walters11, Nancy Haff12, Samantha M Lee13, Lisa Wesby8, Karen Hoffer8, David Shuttleworth8, Devon H Taylor8, Victoria Hilbert8, Jingsan Zhu8, Lin Yang8, Xingmei Wang8, Kevin G Volpp6,7,8,9,10. 1. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. mpatel@upenn.edu. 2. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. mpatel@upenn.edu. 3. LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. mpatel@upenn.edu. 4. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. mpatel@upenn.edu. 5. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. mpatel@upenn.edu. 6. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 9. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 10. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 11. Independence Blue Cross, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 12. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 13. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Carol Ewing Garber; Bryan Blissmer; Michael R Deschenes; Barry A Franklin; Michael J Lamonte; I-Min Lee; David C Nieman; David P Swain Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Kit Delgado; Catherine C McDonald; Flaura K Winston; Scott D Halpern; Alison M Buttenheim; Claudia Setubal; Yanlan Huang; Kathryn A Saulsgiver; Yi-Ching Lee Journal: Traffic Inj Prev Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 1.491
Authors: Marina Serper; Iwan Barankay; Sakshum Chadha; Justine Shults; Lauren S Jones; Kim M Olthoff; Peter P Reese Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Gregory W Kurtzman; Susan C Day; Dylan S Small; Marta Lynch; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Charles A L Rareshide; Mitesh S Patel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Emelia J Benjamin; Kevin G Volpp; Caroline S Fox; Dylan S Small; Joseph M Massaro; Jane J Lee; Victoria Hilbert; Maureen Valentino; Devon H Taylor; Emily S Manders; Karen Mutalik; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Joanne M Murabito Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jonathan A Mitchell; Knashawn H Morales; Ariel A Williamson; Nicholas Huffnagle; Casey Eck; Abigail Jawahar; Lionola Juste; Alexander G Fiks; Babette S Zemel; David F Dinges Journal: Sleep Adv Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Dylan S Small; Joseph D Harrison; Victoria Hilbert; Michael P Fortunato; Ai Leen Oon; Charles A L Rareshide; Kevin G Volpp Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03