A Randomized Trial of Social Comparison Feedback and Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of different combinations of social comparison feedback and financial incentives to increase physical activity. DESIGN: Randomized trial (Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT02030080). SETTING: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eighty-six adults. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-six weeks of weekly feedback on team performance compared to the 50th percentile (n = 100) or the 75th percentile (n = 64) and 13 weeks of weekly lottery-based financial incentive plus feedback on team performance compared to the 50th percentile (n = 80) or the 75th percentile (n = 44) followed by 13 weeks of only performance feedback. MEASURES: Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000-step goal during the 13-week intervention. ANALYSIS: Generalized linear mixed models adjusting for repeated measures and clustering by team. RESULTS: Compared to the 75th percentile without incentives during the intervention period, the mean proportion achieving the 7000-step goal was significantly greater for the 50th percentile with incentives group (0.45 vs 0.27, difference: 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04 to 0.32; P = .012) but not for the 75th percentile with incentives group (0.38 vs 0.27, difference: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.27; P = .19) or the 50th percentile without incentives group (0.30 vs 0.27, difference: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.16; P = .67). CONCLUSION: Social comparison to the 50th percentile with financial incentives was most effective for increasing physical activity.

Premium-Based Financial Incentives Did Not Promote Workplace Weight Loss In A 2013-15 Study.

Employers commonly use adjustments to health insurance premiums as incentives to encourage healthy behavior, but the effectiveness of those adjustments is controversial. We gave 197 obese participants in a workplace wellness program a weight loss goal equivalent to 5 percent of their baseline weight. They were randomly assigned to a control arm, with no financial incentive for achieving the goal, or to one of three intervention arms offering an incentive valued at $550. Two intervention arms used health insurance premium adjustments, beginning the following year (delayed) or in the first pay period after achieving the goal (immediate). A third arm used a daily lottery incentive separate from premiums. At twelve months there were no statistically significant differences in mean weight change either between the control group (whose members had a mean gain of 0.1 pound) and any of the incentive groups (delayed premium adjustment, -1.2 pound; immediate premium adjustment, -1.4 pound; daily lottery incentive, -1.0 pound) or among the intervention groups. The apparent failure of the incentives to promote weight loss suggests that employers that encourage weight reduction through workplace wellness programs should test alternatives to the conventional premium adjustment approach by using alternative incentive designs, larger incentives, or both.