Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme for physical activity behaviour change maintenance: results from a cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme based intervention involving rewards for increasing physical activity in public sector employees.

Methods

A cluster randomised wait-list controlled trial in public sector organisations in Northern Ireland. We randomly assigned clusters (1:1) using a computer generated random sequence. Researchers were masked to allocation, but participants were not. Employees aged 18-65 years with no self-reported medical contraindications to physical activity were included. The Physical Activity Loyalty Scheme (PAL) intervention was based on high-street loyalty cards where participants earned points for minutes of activity that could be redeemed for rewards, complemented by evidence-based behaviour change techniques. The primary outcome was objectively measured mean steps/day at 6 months using a validated pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW-701) over 7 days, assessed with intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included health, mental wellbeing, quality of life, work absenteeism and presenteeism, and use of healthcare resources. Cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and mediation analyses were conducted. Trial registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN17975376.

Results

Between September 2014 and October 2015, we recruited and randomly assigned 37 clusters (from nine organisations; mean clusters per organisation = four) and 853 participants to the intervention (n = 19 with 457 participants) or control group (n = 18 with 396 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 249 (54·4%) intervention and 236 (59·6%) control participants. Mean steps/day were significantly lower in the intervention vs control group (adjusted mean difference = - 336, 95% CI: -612 to - 60, p = 0·02) at 6 months. Participants redeemed only 39% (SD 43%) of their earned points. Using the Quality Adjusted Life Year outcome, the intervention was not cost effective from an NHS/PSS perspective. A net cost analysis from an employer perspective demonstrated the intervention group was associated with a mean of 2·97 h less absenteeism over a 4 week period (p = 0·62), which could result in net savings ranging from £66 to £735 depending on the wage rate employed. At 4-weeks post-baseline there were significant increases in identified regulation, integrated regulation, intrinsic motivation, social norms and intentions in intervention compared to control participants.

Conclusions

Our mixed results pose challenges that are too infrequently exposed in public heath intervention trials. Although the intervention successfully altered several hypothesised mediating constructs it did not translate into long-term behaviour change. Our incentive level may have been too low to incentivise change, despite being designed a priori by a Contingent Valuation Survey. There were also major re-structuring of several organisations which presented significant implementation challenges, and technical limitations.

Trial registration

ISRCTN17975376 (Registered 19/09/2014).

SUBMITTER: Hunter RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6291971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Less than 20% of adolescents globally meet recommended levels of physical activity, and not meeting these recommended levels is associated with social disadvantage and rising disease risk. The determinants of physical activity in adolescents are multilevel and poorly understood, but the school's social environment likely plays an important role. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a school-based programme (GoActive) to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Non-fee-paying, co-educational schools including Year 9 students in the UK counties of Cambridgeshire and Essex were eligible for inclusion. Within participating schools (n = 16), all Year 9 students were eligible and invited to participate. Participants were 2,862 13- to 14-year-olds (84% of eligible students). After baseline assessment, schools were computer-randomised, stratified by school-level pupil premium funding (below/above county-specific median) and county (control: 8 schools, 1,319 participants, mean [SD] participants per school n = 165 [62]; intervention: 8 schools, 1,543 participants, n = 193 [43]). Measurement staff were blinded to allocation. The iteratively developed, feasibility-tested 12-week intervention, aligned with self-determination theory, trained older adolescent mentors and in-class peer-leaders to encourage classes to conduct 2 new weekly activities. Students and classes gained points and rewards for engaging in any activity in or out of school. The primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed MVPA at 10-month follow-up; a mixed-methods process evaluation evaluated implementation. Of 2,862 recruited participants (52.1% male), 2,167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements; we analysed the primary outcome for 1,874 participants (65.5%). At 10 months, there was a mean (SD) decrease in MVPA of 8.3 (19.3) minutes in the control group and 10.4 (22.7) minutes in the intervention group (baseline-adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.91 minutes [-5.53 to 1.70], p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control; it was not cost-effective. Overall, 62.9% of students and 87.3% of mentors reported that GoActive was fun. Teachers and mentors commented that their roles in programme delivery were unclear. Implementation fidelity was low. The main methodological limitation of this study was the relatively affluent and ethnically homogeneous sample. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we observed that a rigorously developed school-based intervention was no more effective than standard school practice at preventing declines in adolescent physical activity. Interdisciplinary research is required to understand educational-setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN31583496.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical inactivity is a leading risk factor for chronic disease. Brief physical activity counselling delivered within healthcare systems has been shown to increase physical activity levels; however, implementation efforts have mostly targeted primary healthcare and uptake has been sub-optimal. The Brief Physical Activity Counselling by Physiotherapists (BEHAVIOUR) trial aims to address this evidence-practice gap by evaluating (i) the effectiveness of a multi-faceted implementation strategy, relative to usual practice for improving the proportion of patients receiving brief physical activity counselling as part of their routine hospital-based physiotherapy care and (ii) effectiveness of brief physical activity counselling embedded in routine physiotherapy care, relative to routine physiotherapy care, at improving physical activity levels among patients receiving physiotherapy care.MethodsEffectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded economic evaluation, qualitative study and culturally adapted patient-level outcome measures. The trial will be conducted across five hospitals in a local health district in Sydney, Australia, with a lower socioeconomic and culturally diverse population. The evidence-based intervention is brief physical activity counselling informed by the 5As counselling model and behavioural theory, embedded into routine physiotherapy care. The multi-faceted strategy to support the implementation of the counselling intervention was developed with key stakeholders guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) theoretical model, and consists of clinician education and training, creating a learning collaborative, tailored strategies to address community referral barriers, team facilitation, and audit and feedback. Thirty teams of physiotherapists will be randomised to receive the multi-faceted implementation strategy immediately or after a 9-month delay. Each physiotherapy team will recruit an average of 10 patients (n=300) to collect effectiveness outcomes at baseline and 6 months. The primary effectiveness outcome is self-reported planned physical activity using the Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire, and the primary implementation outcome is reach (proportion of eligible new physiotherapy patients who receive brief physical activity counselling). Secondary effectiveness and implementation outcomes will also be collected.DiscussionThis project focuses on physiotherapists as health professionals with the requisite skills and patterns of practice to tackle the increasing burden of chronic disease in a high-risk population.Trial registrationANZCTR, ACTRN12621000194864 . Registered on 23 February 2021.

Project description:BackgroundWhile effective physical activity referral schemes (PARSs) and related structures for promoting physical activity (PA) already exist in several countries, in Germany, PARSs have not yet been implemented systematically and nationwide. Through a co-production approach with relevant actors in the German healthcare system, a PARS was developed, and an implementation plan was created (e.g. financing). This study protocol aims to evaluate the developed PARS for people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Germany regarding its potential effectiveness and implementation success.MethodsTo evaluate the effectiveness and implementation success of the PARS, we will apply a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in Hybrid II design by comparing two intervention groups (PARS vs PA advice [PAA]). The trial will take place in the Nürnberg metropolitan region, with 24 physician practices recruiting 567 people with NCDs. Both groups will receive brief PA advice from a physician to initially increase the participants' motivation to change their activity level. Subsequently, the PARS group will be given individualised support from an exercise professional to increase their PA levels and be transferred to local exercise opportunities. In contrast, participants in the PAA group will receive only the brief PA advice as well as information and an overview of regional PA offerings to become more active at their own initiative. After 12 and 24 weeks, changes in moderate to vigorous PA and in physical activity-related health competence (movement competence, control competence, self-regulation competence) will be measured as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include changes in quality of life. To measure implementation success, we refer to the RE-AIM framework and draw on patient documentation, interviews, focus groups and surveys of the participating actors (physicians, exercise professionals).DiscussionThrough a between-group comparison, we will investigate whether additional individual support by an exercise professional compared to brief PA advice alone leads to higher PA levels in people with NCDs. The acceptance and feasibility of both interventions in routine care in the German healthcare system will also be evaluated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04947787 . Registered 01 June 2021.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many people with intellectual disability present with challenging behaviour which often has serious consequences such as the prescription of long term medication, in-patient admissions and disruption of normal daily activities. Small scale studies of Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) delivered by paid carers suggest that it reduces challenging behaviour and costs of care and improves quality of life. This study aims to investigate whether professionals training in the delivery of PBS as part of routine practice is clinically and cost effective compared to treatment as usual in community intellectual disability services. METHOD:The study is a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial involving community intellectual disability services in England and service users with mild to severe intellectual disability and challenging behaviour. The teams will be randomly allocated into one of two conditions, either training and support to deliver PBS or treatment as usual. We will carry out assessments of challenging behaviour, use of services, quality of life, mental health, and family and paid carer burden at six and 12 months. We will monitor treatment fidelity and we will interview a sample of paid and family carers, service users, staff and managers about what they think of the treatment and how best we can deliver it in routine care. The main outcome is reduction in challenging behaviour at one year after randomisation. We will also carry out a health economic evaluation to examine the costs and consequences of staff training in PBS. DISCUSSION:The study findings will have significant implications for the delivery of PBS in community based services with the potential for reducing inpatient admissions and out-of-area placements for adults with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial is registered with Clinical Trials.gov (Ref NCT01680276 ). Clinical Trials Unit: PRIMENT https://www.ucl.ac.uk/priment/ .

Project description:Information and behaviour can spread through interpersonal ties. By targeting influential individuals, health interventions that harness the distributive properties of social networks could be made more effective and efficient than those that do not. Our aim was to assess which targeting methods produce the greatest cascades or spillover effects and hence maximise population-level behaviour change.In this cluster randomised trial, participants were recruited from villages of the Department of Lempira, Honduras. We blocked villages on the basis of network size, socioeconomic status, and baseline rates of water purification, for delivery of two public health interventions: chlorine for water purification and multivitamins for micronutrient deficiencies. We then randomised villages, separately for each intervention, to one of three targeting methods, introducing the interventions to 5% samples composed of either: randomly selected villagers (n=9 villages for each intervention); villagers with the most social ties (n=9); or nominated friends of random villagers (n=9; the last strategy exploiting the so-called friendship paradox of social networks). Participants and data collectors were not aware of the targeting methods. Primary endpoints were the proportions of available products redeemed by the entire population under each targeting method. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01672580.Between Aug 4, and Aug 14, 2012, 32 villages in rural Honduras (25-541 participants each; total study population of 5773) received public health interventions. For each intervention, nine villages (each with 1-20 initial target individuals) were randomised, using a blocked design, to each of the three targeting methods. In nomination-targeted villages, 951 (74·3%) of 1280 available multivitamin tickets were redeemed compared with 940 (66·2%) of 1420 in randomly targeted villages and 744 (61·0%) of 1220 in indegree-targeted villages. All pairwise differences in redemption rates were significant (p<0·01) after correction for multiple comparisons. Targeting nominated friends increased adoption of the nutritional intervention by 12·2% compared with random targeting (95% CI 6·9-17·9). Targeting the most highly connected individuals, by contrast, produced no greater adoption of either intervention, compared with random targeting.Introduction of a health intervention to the nominated friends of random individuals can enhance that intervention's diffusion by exploiting intrinsic properties of human social networks. This method has the additional advantage of scalability because it can be implemented without mapping the network. Deployment of certain types of health interventions via network targeting, without increasing the number of individuals targeted or the resources used, could enhance the adoption and efficiency of those interventions, thereby improving population health.National Institutes of Health, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Star Family Foundation, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Project description:ObjectivesChildren in China have low levels of physical activity. We developed a school-based behaviour change intervention to increase their physical activity levels. The study aimed to determine the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the future. This future cluster RCT will evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.DesignFeasibility cluster non-RCT design.SettingTwo public schools (one intervention and one control) in Yangzhou, China.ParticipantsChildren aged 10-12 years and their parents.InterventionThe 16-week school-based behaviour change intervention to increase physical activity levels consisted of three components (a) health education (physical education), (b) family involvement and (c) school environment support.Outcomes measuresWe estimated important parameters that are needed to design the future cluster RCT, such as SD of the primary outcome (ie, 7-day steps in children), intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC), recruitment of child-parent dyads, follow-up of children, completion of and time needed for data collection among children and intervention attendance.ResultsSixty-four children and their parents participated in the study (32 per study group). The SD of the primary outcome was 34 519 steps. The ICC was 0.03. The recruitment and follow-up rates were 100%. The completion of data collection was 100% (except for the 7-day steps at baseline-one child lost the step log in the intervention group and two children lost their pedometer in the control group). The time needed to complete the self-reported questionnaire by children was around 15 min per study group, and the measurement of their anthropometric parameters took around 40 min per study group. The intervention attendance was 100%.ConclusionsBased on the promising recruitment, follow-up, completion of and time needed for data collection and intervention attendance, it would be feasible to undertake the future cluster RCT in China.Trial registration numberChiCTR1900026865.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions to increase physical activity or reduce sedentary behaviour within the workplace setting have shown mixed effects. This cluster randomised controlled trial assessed whether multi-component interventions, focusing on changes at the individual, environmental, and organisational levels, either increased physical activity or reduced sedentary behaviour, compared to a passive control group.MethodsTeams of office-workers from two companies participated in one of two interventions (iPA: targeting physical activity; or iSED: targeting sedentary behaviour), or wait-list control group (C). Exclusion criterion was very high physical activity level (MVPA ≥30 min/day in ≥10 min bouts every day). Randomisation occurred at the level of workplace cluster, and groups were randomly allocated (1:1) with stratification for company and cluster size. Personnel involved in data collection and processing were blinded to group allocation. Both interventions included five sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy counselling for 6 months. iPA included counselling focused on physical activity, access to a gym, and encouragement to exercise, and go for lunch walks. iSED included counselling on sedentary behaviour and encouragement to reduce sitting and increase engagement in standing- and walking-meetings. At baseline and the 6-month mark accelerometers were worn on the hip and thigh for 7 days. The primary outcomes were group differences in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (%MVPA) and in sedentary behaviour (%), analysed using Bayesian multilevel modelling for those with complete data.ResultsTwo-hundred and sixty three office workers (73% women, mean age 42 ± 9 years, education 15 ± 2 years) were randomised into 23 cluster teams (iPA n = 84, 8 clusters; iSED n = 87, 7 clusters; C n = 92, 7 clusters). No significant group differences (posterior mean ratios: 95% credible interval) were found after the intervention for %MVPA or for %Sedentary. %MVPA: iPA vs C (0·04: - 0·80-0·82); iSED vs C (0·47: - 0·41-1·32); iPA vs iSED (0·43: - 0·42-1·27). %Sedentary: iPA vs C (1·16: - 1·66-4·02); iSED vs C (- 0·44: - 3·50-2·64); iPA vs iSED (- 1·60: - 4·72-1·47).ConclusionsThe multi-component interventions focusing on either physical activity or sedentary behaviour were unsuccessful at increasing device-measured physical activity or reducing sedentary behaviour compared to a control group.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN92968402 . Registered 27/2/2018, recruitment started 15/03/2018.

Project description:Self-management interventions are considered effective in patients with chronic disease, but trials have shown inconsistent results, and it is unknown which patients benefit most. Adequate self-management requires behaviour change in both patients and health care providers. Therefore, the Activate intervention was developed with a focus on behaviour change in both patients and nurses. The intervention aims for change in a single self-management behaviour, namely physical activity, in primary care patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Activate intervention.A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to compare the Activate intervention with care as usual at 31 general practices in the Netherlands. Approximately 279 patients at risk for cardiovascular disease will participate. The Activate intervention is developed using the Behaviour Change Wheel and consists of 4 nurse-led consultations in a 3-month period, integrating 17 behaviour change techniques. The Behaviour Change Wheel was also applied to analyse what behaviour change is needed in nurses to deliver the intervention adequately. This resulted in 1-day training and coaching sessions (including 21 behaviour change techniques). The primary outcome is physical activity, measured as the number of minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity using an accelerometer. Potential effect modifiers are age, body mass index, level of education, social support, depression, patient-provider relationship and baseline number of minutes of physical activity. Data will be collected at baseline and at 3 months and 6 months of follow-up. A process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the training of nurses, treatment fidelity, and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation as well as to assess participants' satisfaction.To increase physical activity in patients and to support nurses in delivering the intervention, behaviour change techniques are applied to change behaviours of the patients and nurses. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention, exploration of which patients benefit most, and evaluation of our theory-based training for primary care nurses will enhance understanding of what works and for whom, which is essential for further implementation of self-management in clinical practice.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02725203 . Registered on 25 March 2016.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a) a Multiple Health Behaviour Change (MHBC) intervention on reducing smoking, increasing physical activity and adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern in people aged 45-75 years compared to usual care; and b) an implementation strategy.MethodsA cluster randomised effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial-type 2 with two parallel groups was conducted in 25 Spanish Primary Health Care (PHC) centres (3062 participants): 12 centres (1481 participants) were randomised to the intervention and 13 (1581 participants) to the control group (usual care). The intervention was based on the Transtheoretical Model and focused on all target behaviours using individual, group and community approaches. PHC professionals made it during routine care. The implementation strategy was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were analysed using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for clustering. A mixed-methods data analysis was used to evaluate implementation outcomes (adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and fidelity) and determinants of implementation success.Results14.5% of participants in the intervention group and 8.9% in the usual care group showed a positive change in two or all the target behaviours. Intervention was more effective in promoting dietary behaviour change (31.9% vs 21.4%). The overall adoption rate by professionals was 48.7%. Early and final appropriateness were perceived by professionals as moderate. Early acceptability was high, whereas final acceptability was only moderate. Initial and final acceptability as perceived by the participants was high, and appropriateness moderate. Consent and recruitment rates were 82.0% and 65.5%, respectively, intervention uptake was 89.5% and completion rate 74.7%. The global value of the percentage of approaches with fidelity ≥50% was 16.7%. Eight CFIR constructs distinguished between high and low implementation, five corresponding to the Inner Setting domain.ConclusionsCompared to usual care, the EIRA intervention was more effective in promoting MHBC and dietary behaviour change. Implementation outcomes were satisfactory except for the fidelity to the planned intervention, which was low. The organisational and structural contexts of the centres proved to be significant determinants of implementation effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03136211 . Registered 2 May 2017, "retrospectively registered".