Patel Mitesh S, Asch David A, Rosin Roy, Small Dylan S, Bellamy Scarlett L, Eberbach Kimberly, Walters Karen J, Haff Nancy, Lee Samantha M, Wesby Lisa, Hoffer Karen, Shuttleworth David, Taylor Devon H, Hilbert Victoria, Zhu Jingsan, Yang Lin, Wang Xingmei, Volpp Kevin G
Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jul;31(7):746-54. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3627-0. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
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.
美国超过半数成年人未达到获得健康益处所需的最低身体活动推荐水平。促进身体活动的经济激励措施的最佳设计尚不清楚。
比较个人与团队经济激励措施对增加身体活动的有效性。
将三种干预措施与对照组进行比较的随机对照试验。
来自费城一家机构的304名成年员工组成了76个四人团队。
在干预期(第1 - 13周)和随访期(第14 - 26周),所有参与者都会收到关于实现每日7000步目标进展情况的每日反馈。对照组未接受其他干预。在三个经济激励组中,在为期13周的干预期间每隔一天进行抽奖,选出一个获胜团队。获胜团队中的参与者符合以下条件可获奖:若达到目标,个人奖励50美元(个人激励);只有所有四名团队成员都达到目标,奖励50美元(团队激励);若个人达到目标,奖励20美元,另外三名达到目标的队友每人再奖励10美元(组合激励)。
干预期间达到7000步目标的参与者天数的平均比例。
在干预期间,与对照组相比,组合激励组达到7000步目标的平均比例显著更高(0.35对0.18,差值:0.17,95%置信区间[CI]:0.07 - 0.28,p <0.001),但个人激励组(0.25对0.18,差值:0.08,95% CI: - 0.02 - 0.18,p = 0.13)和团队激励组(0.17对0.18,差值: - 0.003,95% CI: - 0.11 - 0.10,p = 0.96)并非如此。组合激励组参与者达到目标的比例也显著高于团队激励组(0.35对0.17,差值:0.18,95% CI:0.08 - 0.28,p <0.001),但与个人激励组相比无显著差异(0.35对0.25,差值:0.10,95% CI: - 0.001 - 0.19,p = 0.05)。只有组合激励组的平均每日步数高于对照组(差值:1446,95% CI:448 - 2444,p≤0.005)。在随访期(第14 - 26周)各小组之间无显著差异。
结合个人和团队表现的经济激励措施对增加身体活动最为有效。
Clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT02001194。