Dataset Information

Use of financial incentives and text message feedback to increase healthy food purchases in a grocery store cash back program: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The 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. METHODS:Members 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. RESULTS:Of 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. CONCLUSIONS:None 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 REGISTRATION:NCT02486588 Increasing Engagement with a Healthy Food Benefit. The trial was prospectively registered on July 1, 2015.

SUBMITTER: Gopalan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6544953 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of financial incentives and text message feedback to increase healthy food purchases in a grocery store cash back program: a randomized controlled trial.

Gopalan Anjali A Shaw Pamela A PA Lim Raymond R Paramanund Jithen J Patel Deepak D Zhu Jingsan J Volpp Kevin G KG Buttenheim Alison M AM

BMC public health 20190531 1

<h4>Background</h4>The 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.<h4>Methods</h4>Members 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 te ...[more]

PMID: 31151390

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe health benefits related to intake of whole grain foods are well established. Consumption of whole grains in the US population is low, and whole grain content can vary greatly depending upon the specific products that are purchased.ObjectivesTo examine the proportion of products purchased by US households containing whole grain and refined grain ingredients using time-specific food composition data, and examine whether purchases differ between income, race or ethnicity, and household make-up.MethodsNationally representative Nielsen Homescan 2018 data were used. Each barcoded product captured in Nielsen Homescan 2018 was linked with ingredient information using commercial nutrition databases in a time-relevant manner. Packaged food products containing whole grain ingredients, refined grain ingredients, neither, or both were identified. The percentage of packaged food products containing whole grain and refined grain ingredients purchased by US households was determined overall, by demographic subgroup, and by food category.ResultsThe proportion of packaged food purchases containing refined grain ingredients was significantly higher than whole grain ingredients (30.9% compared with 7.9%; P < 0.0001). Lower income households and households with children purchased a significantly higher proportion of products containing refined grain ingredients, with no nutritionally meaningful racial or ethnic differences observed. Concerningly, across all demographic subgroups >90% of bread purchases contained refined grain ingredients, and the 5 categories with the largest proportion of whole grain ingredients contributed to <20% of overall US household packaged food purchases.ConclusionsUS households are purchasing a significantly higher proportion of packaged food products containing refined grain ingredients than whole grain ingredients. Future policy changes are needed to provide incentives and information (e.g., front-of-pack labels) to aid in encouraging manufacturers to increase whole grain product offerings while decreasing refined grain offerings, and to encourage consumers to substitute away from refined grain products toward whole grain products.

Project description:BackgroundPurchases at small/non-traditional food stores tend to have poor nutritional quality, and have been associated with poor health outcomes, including increased obesity risk The purpose of this study was to examine whether customers who shop at small/non-traditional food stores with more health promoting features make healthier purchases.MethodsIn a cross-sectional design, data collectors assessed store features in a sample of 99 small and non-traditional food stores not participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN in 2014. Customer intercept interviews (n = 594) collected purchase data from a bag check and demographics from a survey. Store measures included fruit/vegetable and whole grain availability, an overall Healthy Food Supply Score (HFSS), healthy food advertisements and in-store placement, and shelf space of key items. Customer nutritional measures were analyzed using Nutrient Databases System for Research (NDSR), and included the purchase of ≥1 serving of fruits/vegetables; ≥1 serving of whole grains; and overall Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010) score for foods/beverages purchased. Associations between store and customer measures were estimated in multilevel linear and logistic regression models, controlling for customer characteristics and store type.ResultsFew customers purchased fruits and vegetables (8%) or whole grains (8%). In fully adjusted models, purchase HEI-2010 scores were associated with fruit/vegetable shelf space (p = 0.002) and the ratio of shelf space devoted to healthy vs. less healthy items (p = 0.0002). Offering ≥14 varieties of fruit/vegetables was associated with produce purchases (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.2-12.3), as was having produce visible from the store entrance (OR 2.3 95% CI 1.0 to 5.8), but whole grain availability measures were not associated with whole grain purchases.ConclusionsStrategies addressing both customer demand and the availability of healthy food may be necessary to improve customer purchases.Trial registrationClinialTrials.gov: NCT02774330 . Registered May 4, 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:ImportanceHandheld phone use while driving is a major factor in vehicle crashes. Scalable interventions are needed to encourage drivers not to use their phones.ObjectiveTo test whether interventions involving social comparison feedback and/or financial incentives can reduce drivers' handheld phone use.Design, setting, and participantsIn 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.InterventionsParticipants 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 measureProportion 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, providing social comparison feedback plus incentives reduced handheld phone use while individuals were driving.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03833219.

Project description:BackgroundThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides approximately US$70 billion annually to support food purchases by low-income households, supporting approximately 1 in 7 Americans. In the 2018 Farm Bill, potential SNAP revisions to improve diets and health could include financial incentives, disincentives, or restrictions for certain foods. However, the overall and comparative impacts on health outcomes and costs are not established. We aimed to estimate the health impact, program and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of food incentives, disincentives, or restrictions in SNAP.Methods and findingsWe used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT), populated with national data on adult SNAP participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2014, policy effects from SNAP pilots and food pricing meta-analyses, diet-disease effects from meta-analyses, and policy, food, and healthcare costs from published literature to estimate the overall and comparative impacts of 3 dietary policy interventions: (1) a 30% incentive for fruits and vegetables (F&V), (2) a 30% F&V incentive with a restriction of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and (3) a broader incentive/disincentive program for multiple foods that also preserves choice (SNAP-plus), combining 30% incentives for F&V, nuts, whole grains, fish, and plant-based oils and 30% disincentives for SSBs, junk food, and processed meats. Among approximately 14.5 million adults on SNAP at baseline with mean age 52 years, our simulation estimates that the F&V incentive over 5 years would prevent 38,782 cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, gain 18,928 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and save $1.21 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to 93,933 CVD events prevented, 45,864 QALYs gained, and $4.33 billion saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were 116,875 CVD events prevented, 56,056 QALYs gained, and $5.28 billion saved. Over a lifetime, the F&V incentive would prevent approximately 303,900 CVD events, gain 649,000 QALYs, and save $6.77 billion in healthcare costs. Adding SSB restriction increased gains to approximately 797,900 CVD events prevented, 2.11 million QALYs gained, and $39.16 billion in healthcare costs saved. For SNAP-plus, corresponding gains were approximately 940,000 CVD events prevented, 2.47 million QALYs gained, and $41.93 billion saved. From a societal perspective (including programmatic costs but excluding food subsidy costs as an intra-societal transfer), all 3 scenarios were cost-saving. From a government affordability perspective (i.e., incorporating food subsidy costs, including for children and young adults for whom no health gains were modeled), the F&V incentive was of low cost-effectiveness at 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $548,053/QALY) but achieved cost-effectiveness ($66,525/QALY) over a lifetime. Adding SSB restriction, the intervention was cost-effective at 10 years ($68,857/QALY) and very cost-effective at 20 years ($26,435/QALY) and over a lifetime ($5,216/QALY). The combined incentive/disincentive program produced the largest health gains and reduced both healthcare and food costs, with net cost-savings of $10.16 billion at 5 years and $63.33 billion over a lifetime. Results were consistent in probabilistic sensitivity analyses: for example, from a societal perspective, 1,000 of 1,000 iterations (100%) were cost-saving for all 3 interventions. Due to the nature of simulation studies, the findings cannot prove the health and cost impacts of national SNAP interventions.ConclusionsLeveraging healthier eating through SNAP could generate substantial health benefits and be cost-effective or cost-saving. A combined food incentive/disincentive program appears most effective and may be most attractive to policy-makers.

Dataset Information

Use of financial incentives and text message feedback to increase healthy food purchases in a grocery store cash back program: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Use of financial incentives and text message feedback to increase healthy food purchases in a grocery store cash back program: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets