Dataset Information

Effect of Gamification With and Without Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Veterans Classified as Having Obesity or Overweight: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Gamification is increasingly being used for health promotion but has not been well tested with financial incentives or among veterans.

Objective

To test the effectiveness of gamification with social support, with and without a loss-framed financial incentive, to increase physical activity among veterans classified as having overweight and obesity.

Design, setting, and participants

This 3-group randomized clinical trial had a 12-week intervention period and an 8-week follow-up period. Participants included veterans with a body mass index greater than or equal to 25 who were receiving care from a single site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Participants underwent a remotely monitored intervention from March 19, 2019, to August 9, 2020. Data analyses were conducted between October 1, 2020, and November 14, 2020.

Interventions

All participants received a wearable device to track step counts and selected a step goal. The control group received feedback from their devices only. Participants in the 2 gamification groups were entered into a 12-week game with points and levels designed using behavioral economic principles and selected a support partner to receive weekly updates. Participants in the loss-framed financial incentive group had $120 allocated to a virtual account and lost $10 if weekly goals were not achieved.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the change in mean daily steps from baseline during the intervention. Secondary outcomes include proportion of days goals were achieved and changes during follow-up.

Results

A total of 180 participants were randomized, 60 to the gamification with social support group, 60 to the gamification with social support and loss-framed financial incentives group, and 60 to the control group. The participants had a mean (SD) age of 56.5 (12.9) years and a mean (SD) body mass index of 33.0 (5.6); 71 participants (39.4%) were women, 90 (50.0%) were White, and 67 (37.2%) were Black. During the intervention period, compared with control group participants, participants in the gamification with financial incentives group had a significant increase in mean daily steps from baseline (adjusted difference, 1224 steps; 95% CI, 451 to 1996 steps; P = .005), but participants in the gamification without financial incentives group did not (adjusted difference, 433 steps; 95% CI, -337 to 1203 steps; P = .81). The increase for the gamification with financial incentives group was not sustained during the follow-up period, and the step count was not significantly different than that of the control group (adjusted difference, 564 steps; 95% CI, -261 to 1389 steps; P = .37). Compared with the control group, participants in the intervention groups had a significantly higher adjusted proportion of days meeting their step goal during the main intervention and follow-up period (gamification with social support group, adjusted difference from control, 0.21 participant-day; 95% CI, 0.18-0.24 participant-day; P < .001; gamification with social support and loss-framed financial incentive group, adjusted difference from control, 0.34 participant-day; 95% CI, 0.31-0.37 participant-day; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

Among veterans classified as having overweight and obesity, gamification with social support combined with loss-framed financial incentives was associated with a modest increase in physical activity during the intervention period, but the increase was not sustained during follow-up. Gamification without incentives did not significantly change physical activity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03563027.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8271358 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFinancial incentives effectively increase smoking cessation rates, but it is unclear via which psychological mechanisms incentives influence quit behavior. The current study examines how receiving financial incentives for smoking cessation leads to quitting smoking and investigates several mediators and moderators of that relationship.Aims and methodsThe study sample consisted of 604 tobacco-smoking employees from 61 companies in the Netherlands who completed a baseline and follow-up questionnaire. The current study is a secondary analysis from a cluster randomized trial where employees received smoking cessation group counseling at the workplace. Participants in the intervention group additionally received financial incentives of €350 in total for 12-month continuous smoking abstinence. We used a two-level path analysis to test a model that assesses the effects of financial incentives through smoking cessation program evaluation, medication use, nicotine replacement use, attitudes, self-efficacy, and social influences on quit success. We additionally tested whether an individual's reward responsiveness moderated the influence of incentives on quit success.ResultsThe effect of financial incentives on quit success was mediated by a higher self-efficacy. Financial incentives were also associated with a higher use of cessation medication. A more positive program evaluation was related to higher self-efficacy, more social influence to quit, and more positive attitudes about quitting. The results did not differ significantly by individual reward responsiveness.ConclusionsThe results of the current study suggest that financial incentives may be used to increase medication use and self-efficacy for quitting smoking, which offers an indirect way to increase successful smoking cessation.Implications(1) This is the first study investigating via which psychological pathways financial incentives for quitting smoking can lead to long-term quit success. (2) The results showed a path between financial incentives and a higher likelihood of medication use. Incentives may encourage smokers to use medication in order to increase their chance of quitting smoking and receive the reward. (3) There was a path from financial incentives to quit success via a higher self-efficacy. (4) The effects of financial incentives did not depend on individual reward responsiveness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Compared with white persons, African Americans have a greater incidence of diabetes, decreased control, and higher rates of microvascular complications. A peer mentorship model could be a scalable approach to improving control in this population and reducing disparities in diabetic outcomes. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether peer mentors or financial incentives are superior to usual care in helping African American veterans decrease their hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels. DESIGN:A 6-month randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01125956) SETTING:Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PATIENTS:African American veterans aged 50 to 70 years with persistently poor diabetes control. INTERVENTION:118 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: usual care, a peer mentoring group, and a financial incentives group. Usual care patients were notified of their starting HbA(1c) level and recommended goals for HbA(1c). Those in the peer mentoring group were assigned a mentor who formerly had poor glycemic control but now had good control (HbA(1c) level ?7.5%). The mentor was asked to talk with the patient at least once per week. Peer mentors were matched by race, sex, and age. Patients in the financial incentive group could earn $100 by decreasing their HbA(1c) level by 1% and $200 by decreasing it by 2% or to an HbA(1c) level of 6.5%. MEASUREMENTS:Change in HbA(1c) level at 6 months. RESULTS:Mentors and mentees talked the most in the first month (mean calls, 4; range, 0 to 30), but calls decreased to a mean of 2 calls (range, 0 to 10) by the sixth month. Levels of HbA(1c) decreased from 9.9% to 9.8% in the control group, from 9.8% to 8.7% in the peer mentor group, and from 9.5% to 9.1% in the financial incentive group. Mean change in HbA(1c) level from baseline to 6 months relative to control was -1.07% (95% CI, -1.84% to -0.31%) in the peer mentor group and -0.45% (CI, -1.23% to 0.32%) in the financial incentive group. LIMITATION:The study included only veterans and lasted only 6 months. CONCLUSION:Peer mentorship improved glucose control in a cohort of African American veterans with diabetes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Institute on Aging Roybal Center.

Project description: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.To compare the effectiveness of individual versus team-based financial incentives to increase physical activity.Randomized, controlled trial comparing three interventions to control.Three hundred and four adult employees from an organization in Philadelphia formed 76 four-member teams.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).Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000 step goal during the intervention.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).Financial incentives rewarded for a combination of individual and team performance were most effective for increasing physical activity.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02001194.

Project description:Importance:Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective:To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants:This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions:Interventions were (1) mail only (n?=?284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n?=?270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n?=?284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results:A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P?=?.11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P?=?.04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P?=?.03). Conclusions and Relevance:Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.

Project description:ObjectivesFinancial incentive programs are effective in increasing physical activity for overweight, ambulatory adults. We sought to determine the potential effect size and direction of financial incentives on ambulation after radical cystectomy.Materials and methodsWe performed a pilot randomized controlled trial of daily financial incentives to meet postoperative step goals among adults with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 who underwent radical cystectomy for bladder cancer at a single center. Step counts were measured over a 3- to 14-day preoperative period and 30-day postoperative period using a wearable activity monitor. Postoperative daily step goals of 10%, 25%, 40%, and 55% of mean preoperative daily step counts were set for postoperative weeks 1 through 4, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of postoperative days on which the step goals were met. Secondary outcomes included the number of daily postoperative steps taken and the length of stay. Participants randomized to the intervention arm received $1.50 for every day the goal was met with a 20% chance of a $100 reward if the step goal was met on >75% of the first 30 postoperative days. Questionnaires assessing self-reported physical activity, disability, and social support were administered preoperatively at 30 days postoperatively.ResultsThirty-three patients were analyzed, 11 in the control and 22 in the intervention arms. There were no statistically significant differences between incentive and control arms for the primary outcome (4.5/30 days vs. 9/30 days, P = 0.53). Results after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics were similar (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24-4.19, P = 1.00). There were also no differences in average daily postoperative steps (median 979 vs. 1191, 95% CI -810 to 1,400, P = 0.59), length of stay (7.5 vs. 7, 95% CI -2.7 to 5.1, P = 0.56), or self-reported measures of disability, activity, and social support.ConclusionsWhile this trial was a pilot study and not powered to detect a difference between groups, there was no suggestion of any clinically important impact of this financial incentive on postoperative ambulation. While a fully-powered trial is feasible, given the small range of plausible benefit, such a trial would be unlikely to influence clinical practice.