Dataset Information

Feedback and Financial Incentives for Reducing Cell Phone Use While Driving: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Handheld phone use while driving is a major factor in vehicle crashes. Scalable interventions are needed to encourage drivers not to use their phones.

Objective

To test whether interventions involving social comparison feedback and/or financial incentives can reduce drivers' handheld phone use.

Design, setting, and participants

In a randomized clinical trial, interventions were administered nationwide in the US via a mobile application in the context of a usage-based insurance program (Snapshot Mobile application). Customers were eligible to be invited to participate in the study if enrolled in the usage-based insurance program for 30 to 70 days. The study was conducted from May 13 to June 30, 2019. Analysis was completed December 22, 2023.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 trial arms for a 7-week intervention period: (1) control; (2) feedback, with weekly push notification about their handheld phone use compared with that of similar others; (3) standard incentive, with a maximum $50 award at the end of the intervention based on how their handheld phone use compared with similar others; (4) standard incentive plus feedback, combining interventions of arms 2 and 3; (5) reframed incentive plus feedback, with a maximum $7.15 award each week, framed as participant's to lose; and (6) doubled reframed incentive plus feedback, a maximum $14.29 weekly loss-framed award.

Main outcome and measure

Proportion of drive time engaged in handheld phone use in seconds per hour (s/h) of driving. Analyses were conducted with the intention-to-treat approach.

Results

Of 17 663 customers invited by email to participate, 2109 opted in and were randomized. A total of 2020 drivers finished the intervention period (68.0% female; median age, 30 [IQR, 25-39] years). Median baseline handheld phone use was 216 (IQR, 72-480) s/h. Relative to control, feedback and standard incentive participants did not reduce their handheld phone use. Standard incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -38 (95% CI, -69 to -8) s/h (P = .045); reframed incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -56 (95% CI, -87 to -26) s/h (P < .001); and doubled reframed incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -42 s/h (95% CI, -72 to -13 s/h; P = .007). The 5 active treatment arms did not differ significantly from each other.

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, providing social comparison feedback plus incentives reduced handheld phone use while individuals were driving.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03833219.

SUBMITTER: Delgado MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11238027 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Feedback and Financial Incentives for Reducing Cell Phone Use While Driving: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Delgado M Kit MK Ebert Jeffrey P JP Xiong Ruiying A RA Winston Flaura K FK McDonald Catherine C CC Rosin Roy M RM Volpp Kevin G KG Barnett Ian J IJ Small Dylan S DS Wiebe Douglas J DJ Abdel-Rahman Dina D Hemmons Jessica E JE Finegold Rafi R Kotrc Benjamin B Radford Emma E Fisher William J WJ Gaba Kristen L KL Everett William C WC Halpern Scott D SD

JAMA network open 20240701 7

<h4>Importance</h4>Handheld phone use while driving is a major factor in vehicle crashes. Scalable interventions are needed to encourage drivers not to use their phones.<h4>Objective</h4>To test whether interventions involving social comparison feedback and/or financial incentives can reduce drivers' handheld phone use.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>In a randomized clinical trial, interventions were administered nationwide in the US via a mobile application in the context of a usage-b ...[more]

PMID: 38985474

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough breastfeeding has a positive effect on an infant's health and development, the prevalence is low in many communities. The effect of financial incentives to improve breastfeeding prevalence is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of an area-level financial incentive for breastfeeding on breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum.Design, setting, and participantsThe Nourishing Start for Health (NOSH) trial, a cluster randomized trial with 6 to 8 weeks follow-up, was conducted between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, in 92 electoral ward areas in England with baseline breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum less than 40%. A total of 10 010 mother-infant dyads resident in the 92 study electoral ward areas where the infant's estimated or actual birth date fell between February 18, 2015, and February 17, 2016, were included. Areas were randomized to the incentive plus usual care (n = 46) (5398 mother-infant dyads) or to usual care alone (n = 46) (4612 mother-infant dyads).InterventionsUsual care was delivered by clinicians (mainly midwives, health visitors) in a variety of maternity, neonatal, and infant feeding services, all of which were implementing the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative standards. Shopping vouchers worth £40 (US$50) were offered to mothers 5 times based on infant age (2 days, 10 days, 6-8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months), conditional on the infant receiving any breast milk.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was electoral ward area-level 6- to 8-week breastfeeding period prevalence, as assessed by clinicians at the routine 6- to 8-week postnatal check visit. Secondary outcomes were area-level period prevalence for breastfeeding initiation and for exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks.ResultsIn the intervention (5398 mother-infant dyads) and control (4612 mother-infant dyads) group, the median (interquartile range) percentage of women aged 16 to 44 years was 36.2% (3.0%) and 37.4% (3.6%) years, respectively. After adjusting for baseline breastfeeding prevalence and local government area and weighting to reflect unequal cluster-level breastfeeding prevalence variances, a difference in mean 6- to 8-week breastfeeding prevalence of 5.7 percentage points (37.9% vs 31.7%; 95% CI for adjusted difference, 2.7% to 8.6%; P < .001) in favor of the intervention vs usual care was observed. No significant differences were observed for the mean prevalence of breastfeeding initiation (61.9% vs 57.5%; adjusted mean difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95%, CI, -0.4 to 6.2; P = .08) or the mean prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks (27.0% vs 24.1%; adjusted mean difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 4.8; P = .07).Conclusions and relevanceFinancial incentives may improve breastfeeding rates in areas with low baseline prevalence. Offering a financial incentive to women in areas of England with breastfeeding rates below 40% compared with usual care resulted in a modest but statistically significant increase in breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks. This was measured using routinely collected data.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry: ISRCTN44898617.

Project description:ImportancePrior studies found that financial incentives have small, positive direct effects in increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates, but unmeasured social spillovers (ie, changes in outcomes among untreated individuals who are socially exposed to policy beneficiaries) may diminish the overall effect of such policies.ObjectiveTo assess the spillover effects of a COVID-19 vaccination financial incentive and assess whether incorporating estimates of spillover meaningfully affects broader evaluations of policy effectiveness.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-level, address-cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in November 2021. Participants were all adult (aged ≥18 years) residents of Ravensburg, Germany, who were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. One resident in each address cluster was randomly selected to be an address-cluster representative. Address-cluster representatives in the treatment group received the treatment letter; all other cohabitants at that same address received the control letter. All individuals in addresses randomly assigned to the control group were mailed a control letter. Intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted from January 2022 to May 2024.InterventionControl letters informed recipients about 7 upcoming free COVID-19 vaccination events. Treatment letters were identical to control letters, except they also offered €40 (US $41.46) for getting vaccinated at one of the events.Main outcome and measurePrimary and booster COVID-19 vaccination uptake was observed and recorded on site during the public vaccination events. Primary vaccinations were defined as either the first dose of a 1-dose vaccine or the first or second dose of a 2-doses vaccine. Boosters were defined as any dose after primary vaccination. Three types of commonly used treatment effects were analyzed: direct, spillover, and overall.ResultsAmong 41 548 Ravensburg residents (mean [SD] age, 49.96 [19.04] years; 51.3% female), 796 (1.9%) were vaccinated at 1 of the 7 public vaccination events. The direct, spillover, and overall effects of receiving a financial incentive on primary vaccinations were all nonsignificant. For booster vaccinations, the direct effect was negative but not statistically significant (-0.32 percentage points [95% CI, -0.77 to 0.14 percentage points]; P = .17), whereas the overall effect (-0.30 percentage points [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.09 percentage points]; P = .006) was significantly negative. The spillover effect was significantly negative (-0.29 percentage points [95% CI, -0.53 to -0.06 percentage points]; P = .01), but only for the first vaccination events.Conclusions and relevanceThis trial found null direct effects on COVID-19 vaccination uptake and negative effects on booster uptake among individuals who did not receive but were indirectly exposed to the financial incentives. The timing of this spillover suggests that cohabitants of financial incentive recipients postponed booster vaccination, thereby undermining the potential effectiveness of this policy.Trial registrationISRCTN identifier: ISRCTN59503725.

Project description:ImportanceMailing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits to patients' homes has been shown to boost colorectal cancer screening rates, but response rates remain limited, and organized programs typically require repeated outreach attempts. Behavioral economics has shown that offering salient financial incentives to patients may increase participation in preventive health.ObjectiveTo compare the impact of different financial incentives for mailed FIT outreach.Design, setting, and participantsThis 4-parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included patients aged 50 to 75 years who had an established primary care clinician, at least 2 visits in the prior 2 years, and were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and not up-to-date. This study was conducted at urban primary care practices at an academic health system from December 2015 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March 2018 to September 2018.InterventionsEligible patients received a letter from their primary care clinician that included a mailed FIT kit and instructions for use. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive (1) no financial incentive; (2) an unconditional $10 incentive included with the mailing; (3) a $10 incentive conditional on FIT completion; or (4) a conditional lottery with a 1-in-10 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion.Main outcomes and measuresFecal immunochemical test completion within 2 and 6 months of initial outreach.ResultsA total of 897 participants were randomized, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 52-62 years); 56% were women, and 69% were black. The overall completion rate across all arms was 23.5% at 2 months. The completion rate at 2 months was 26.0% (95% CI, 20.4%-32.3%) in the no incentive arm, 27.2% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.6%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 23.2% (95% CI, 17.9%-29.3%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 17.7% (95% CI, 13.0%-23.3%) in the lottery incentive arm. None of the arms with an incentive were statistically superior to the arm without incentive. The overall FIT completion rate across all arms was 28.9% at 6 months, and there was also no difference by arm. The completion rate at 6 months was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.6%-39.3%) in the no incentive arm, 31.7% (95% CI, 25.7%-38.2%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1%-33.1%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 24.3% (95% CI, 18.9%-30.5%) in the lottery incentive arm.Conclusions and relevanceMailed FIT resulted in high colorectal cancer screening response rates in this population, but different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not incrementally increase FIT completion rates. The incentive value may have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02594150.

Project description:ImportanceEffective weight loss interventions are needed for men with obesity.ObjectiveTo determine whether an intervention that combined text messaging with financial incentives attained significant weight loss at the 12-month follow-up compared with the control group and whether an intervention of text messaging alone attained significant weight loss at the 12-month follow-up compared with the control group.Design, setting, and participantsAn assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted in Belfast, Bristol, and Glasgow areas in the UK. A total of 585 men with body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more were enrolled between July 2021 and May 2022. Final follow-up occurred June 2023.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to 12 months of behavioral focused text messages combined with financial incentives (n = 196), 12 months of behavioral focused text messages alone (n= 194), or a waiting list (control group; n= 195). The financial incentive consisted of a monetary reward that was lost if weight loss targets were not met. All participants received weight management information and a pedometer at baseline.Main outcomes and measuresThe 2 primary comparisons were the 12-month comparison of within-participant weight change between the text messaging with financial incentive group and the control group and the comparison between the text messaging alone group and the control group (minimum clinically important difference, 3%). The P value defined for statistical significance was P < .025 for each comparison.ResultsOf the 585 men (mean [SD] age, 50.7 [13.3] years; mean weight, 118.5 [19.9] kg; mean BMI, 37.7 [5.7]; 525 [90%] White), 227 (39%) lived in postal code areas with lower socioeconomic status, and 426 (73%) completed the 12-month follow-up. At the 12-month follow-up, compared with the control group, the mean percent weight change was significantly greater in the text messaging with financial incentive group (mean difference, -3.2%; 97.5% CI, -4.6% to -1.9%; P < .001) but was not significantly greater in the text messaging alone group (mean difference, -1.4%; 97.5% CI, -2.9% to 0.0, P = .05). The mean (SD) weight changes were -5.7 (7.4) kg for the text messaging with financial incentives group, -3.0 (7.5) kg for the text messaging alone group, and -1.5 (6.6) kg for the control group. The 12-month mean (SD) percentage weight changes from baseline were -4.8% (6.1%) for the text messaging with financial incentives group, -2.7% (6.3%) for text messaging alone group, and -1.3% (5.5%) for the control group. Of 366 adverse events reported, the most common were infections (83 [23%]). Of the 23 serious adverse events (6.3%), 12 (52%) occurred in the text messaging with financial incentives group, 5 (22%) in the texts messaging alone group, and 6 (26%) in the control group. None were considered related to participating in a trial group.Conclusion and relevanceAmong men with obesity, an intervention with text messaging with financial incentive significantly improved weight loss compared with a control group, whereas text messaging alone was not significantly better than the control condition. These findings support text messaging combined with financial incentives to attain weight loss in men with obesity.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN91974895.

Project description:ImportanceSocioeconomically disadvantaged individuals (ie, those with low socioeconomic status [SES]) have difficulty quitting smoking and may benefit from incentive-based cessation interventions.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of incentivizing smoking abstinence on smoking cessation among adults with low SES.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used a 2-group randomized clinical trial design. Data collection occurred between January 30, 2017, and February 7, 2022. Participants included adults with low SES who were willing to undergo smoking cessation treatment. Data were analyzed from April 18, 2023, to April 19, 2024.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to usual care (UC) for smoking cessation (counseling plus pharmacotherapy) or UC plus abstinence-contingent financial incentives (UC plus FI).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 26 weeks after the quit date. Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 7-day PPA at earlier follow-ups, 30-day PPA at 12 and 26 weeks, repeated 7-day PPA, and continuous abstinence. Multiple approaches were employed to handle missing outcomes at follow-up, including categorizing missing data as smoking (primary), complete case analysis, and multiple imputation.ResultsThe 320 participants had a mean (SD) age of 48.9 (11.6) and were predominantly female (202 [63.1%]); 82 (25.6%) were Black, 15 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 200 (62.5%) were White; and 146 (45.6%) participated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 161 were randomized to UC and 159 were randomized to UC plus FI. After covariate adjustment with missing data treated as smoking, assignment to UC plus FI was associated with a greater likelihood of 7-day PPA at the 4-week (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.11 [95% CI, 1.81-5.34]), 8-week (AOR, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.62-5.31]), and 12-week (AOR, 3.18 [95% CI, 1.70-5.95]) follow-ups, but not at the 26-week follow-up (22 [13.8%] vs 14 [8.7%] abstinent; AOR, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.85-3.80]). However, the association of group assignment with smoking cessation reached statistical significance at all follow-ups, including 26 weeks, with multiple imputation (37.37 [23.5%] in the UC plus FI group vs 19.48 [12.1%] in the UC group were abstinent; AOR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.14-4.63]). Repeated-measures analyses indicated that participants in the UC plus FI group were significantly more likely to achieve PPA across assessments through 26 weeks with all missing data estimation methods. Other secondary cessation outcomes also showed comparable patterns across estimation methods. Participants earned a mean (SD) of $72 ($90) (of $250 possible) in abstinence-contingent incentives. Participation during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the likelihood of cessation across assessments.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, incentivizing smoking cessation did not increase cessation at 26 weeks when missing data were treated as smoking; however, the UC plus FI group had greater odds of quitting at follow-ups through 12 weeks. Cessation rates were higher for the UC plus FI group at all follow-ups through 26 weeks when multiple imputation was used to estimate missing outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737566.

Project description:BackgroundThe HealthyFood (HF) program offers members up to 25% cash back monthly on healthy food purchases. In this randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of financial incentives combined with text messages in increasing healthy food purchases among HF members.MethodsMembers receiving the lowest (10%) cash back level were randomized to one of six arms: Arm 1 (Usual Care): 10% cash back, no weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 2: 10% cash back, generic weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 3: 10% cash back, personalized weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 4: 25% cash back, personalized weekly text, standard monthly text; Arm 5: 10 + 15%NET cash back, personalized weekly text, standard monthly text; and, Arm 6: 10 + 15%NET cash back, personalized weekly text, unbundled monthly text. In the 10 + 15%NET cash back, the cash back amount was the baseline 10% plus 15% of the net difference between healthy and unhealthy spending. The generic text included information on HF and healthy eating, while the personalized text had individualized feedback on purchases. The standard monthly text contained the cash back amount. The unbundled monthly text included the amount lost due to unhealthy purchases. The primary outcome was the average monthly percent healthy food spending. Secondary outcomes were the percent unhealthy food spending, and the percent healthy and unhealthy food items.ResultsOf the members contacted, 20 opted out, and 2841 met all inclusion criteria. There were no between-arm differences in the examined outcomes. The largest mean (standard deviation) difference in percent healthy spending was between Arm 1 (24.8% [11%]) and Arm 2 (26.8% [13%]), and the largest mean difference in percent unhealthy spending was also between Arm 1 (24.4% [20%]) and Arm 2 (21.7% [17%]), but no differences were statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons.ConclusionsNone of the tested financial incentive structures or text strategies differentially affected food purchasing. Notably, more than doubling the cash back amount and introducing a financial disincentive for unhealthy purchases did not affect purchasing. These findings speak to the difficulty of changing shopping habits and to the need for innovative strategies to shift complex health behaviors.Trial registrationNCT02486588 Increasing Engagement with a Healthy Food Benefit. The trial was prospectively registered on July 1, 2015.

Dataset Information

Feedback and Financial Incentives for Reducing Cell Phone Use While Driving: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcome and measure

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Feedback and Financial Incentives for Reducing Cell Phone Use While Driving: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets