Are Financial Incentives for Lifestyle Behavior Change Informed or Inspired by Behavioral Economics? A Mapping Review

Financial Incentives and Treatment Outcomes in Adolescents With Severe Obesity: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Adolescent severe obesity is usually not effectively treated with traditional lifestyle modification therapy. Meal replacement therapy (MRT) shows short-term efficacy for body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) reduction in adolescents, and financial incentives (FIs) may be an appropriate adjunct intervention to enhance long-term efficacy.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of MRT plus FIs vs MRT alone on BMI, body fat, and cardiometabolic risk factors in adolescents with severe obesity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a randomized clinical trial of MRT plus FIs vs MRT alone at a large academic health center in the Midwest conducted from 2018 to 2022. Participants were adolescents (ages 13-17 y) with severe obesity (≥120% of the 95th BMI percentile based on sex and age or ≥35 BMI, whichever was lower) who were unaware of the FI component of the trial until they were randomized to MRT plus FIs or until the end of the trial. Study staff members collecting clinical measures were blinded to treatment condition. Data were analyzed from March 2022 to February 2024.

Interventions

MRT included provision of preportioned, calorie-controlled meals (~1200 kcals/d). In the MRT plus FI group, incentives were provided based on reduction in body weight from baseline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was mean BMI percentage change from randomization to 52 weeks. Secondary end points included total body fat and cardiometabolic risk factors: blood pressure, triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein ratio, heart rate variability, and arterial stiffness. Cost-effectiveness was additionally evaluated. Safety was assessed through monthly adverse event monitoring and frequent assessment of unhealthy weight-control behaviors.

Results

Among 126 adolescents with severe obesity (73 female [57.9%]; mean [SD] age, 15.3 [1.2] years), 63 participants received MRT plus FIs and 63 participants received only MRT. At 52 weeks, the mean BMI reduction was greater by -5.9 percentage points (95% CI, -9.9 to -1.9 percentage points; P = .004) in the MRT plus FI compared with the MRT group. The MRT plus FI group had a greater reduction in mean total body fat mass by -4.8 kg (95% CI, -9.1 to -0.6 kg; P = .03) and was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $39 178 per quality-adjusted life year) compared with MRT alone. There were no significant differences in cardiometabolic risk factors or unhealthy weight-control behaviors between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, adding FIs to MRT resulted in greater reductions in BMI and total body fat in adolescents with severe obesity without increased unhealthy weight-control behaviors. FIs were cost-effective and possibly promoted adherence to health behaviors.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03137433.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Behavioral Economic Incentive Programs for Goal Achievement on Healthy Diet, Weight Control and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Healthy diet, weight control and physical activity to reduce obesity can be motivated by financial incentives (FI). Behavioral-economic approaches may improve the incentivization effectiveness. This study compares and ranks the effectiveness of standard and behavioral incentivization for healthy diet, weight control, and physical activity promotion.

PURPOSE

To investigate whether behavioral-economic insights improve incentivization effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline and Scopus was performed from database inception to December 2020. Study characteristics, program designs, and risk ratio (RR) were extracted. A two-stage network meta-analysis pooled and ranked intervention effects.

RESULTS

There were 35 eligible RCTs. For diet-weight control, standard FI, deposit contract (deposit), lottery-based incentive (lottery), and standard-FI + lottery increased goal achievement compared to no-FI but only deposit was statistically significant with pooled RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 1.21 (0.94, 1.56), 1.79 (1.04, 3.05), 1.45 (0.99, 2.13), and 1.73 (0.83, 3.63). For physical activity, standard-FI, deposit, and lottery significantly increased goal achievement compared to no-FI, with pooled RRs of 1.38 (1.13, 1.68), 1.63 (1.24, 2.14) and 1.43 (1.14, 1.80), respectively. In a follow-up period for physical activity, only deposit significantly increased goal achievement compared to no-FI, with pooled RRs of 1.39 (1.11, 1.73).

CONCLUSION

Deposit, followed by lottery, were best for motivating healthy diet, weight control and physical activity at program end. Post-intervention, deposit then standard-FI were best for motivating physical activity. Behavioral insights can improve incentivization effectiveness, although lottery-based approaches may offer only short-term benefit regarding physical activity. However, the imprecise intervention effects were major concerns.

Patient preferences for medication adherence financial incentive structures: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence for chronic conditions continues to be a challenge for patients. Patient incentives for medication adherence may help. Financial incentives delivered at the point of care may act as cues for medication-taking behavior.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate patient preferences for specific structures of financial medication adherence incentives that could feasibly be delivered at the point of care.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was performed using a national online survey. Study participants were adults who self-reported taking at least one prescription medication for one or more chronic conditions. Following an orthogonal design generated in SAS, the DCE included 32 paired-choice tasks. Data were analyzed using mixed logit models and stratified on participants' income level.

RESULTS

In the full cohort (n = 933), form of financial reward (such as gift-card or cash) was 1.02 times as important to participants as the probability of incentive receipt, 1.58 times as important as monetary value, and 1.93 times as important as timing of receipt. Participants were willing to give up $31.04 of an incentive's monetary value (95% CI = $27.11-$34.98) to receive the incentive 5 months sooner (1-month vs. 6-month time-lag); $60.79 (95% CI = $53.19-$68.39) for probability of receipt to increase from a 1 out of 100 chance to a 1 out of 20 chance; and $10.52 (95% CI = $6.46-$14.58) to receive an incentive in the form of a Visa® gift-card instead of grocery store voucher. These patterns of trade-offs between attributes were generally consistent among participants with lower and higher income.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of socioeconomic status, patient preferences for financial medication adherence incentives delivered at the point of care may be most heavily influenced by incentive form and probability of receipt. This has implications for designing medication adherence programs in terms of incentive sustainability, patient engagement, plan star ratings, and patient outcomes.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of behavioural economic incentive programmes for the promotion of a healthy diet and physical activity: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Obesity and being overweight are major risk factors for metabolic syndrome and non-communicable diseases. Despite the recommendation that a healthy diet and physical activity can reduce the severity of these diseases, many fail to adhere to these measures. From a behavioural economic perspective, adherence to such measures can be encouraged through financial incentives. However, additional related behavioural economic approaches may improve the effectiveness of an incentive programme. As such, we have developed a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis to summarise the current evidence from financial incentive programmes with and without behavioural economic insights for promoting healthy diet and physical activity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Previous systematic reviews, meta-analyses and individual studies were identified from Medline and Scopus in June 2020 and will be updated until December 2020. Individual studies will be selected and data extracted by two reviewers. Disagreement will be resolved by consensus or adjudicated by a third reviewer. A descriptive analysis will summarise the effectiveness of behavioural economic incentive programmes for promoting healthy diet and physical activity. Moreover, individual studies will be pooled using network meta-analyses where possible. I² statistics and Cochran's Q test will be used to assess heterogeneity. Risk of bias and publication bias, if appropriate, will be evaluated, as well as the overall strength of the evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for a systematic review and meta-analysis is not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198024.

The Impact of Financial Incentives on Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of financial incentives on physical activity (PA).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, 7 other databases, and 2 trial registries until July 17, 2019.

STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials with adults aged ≥18 years assessing the effect of financial incentives on PA. Any comparator was eligible provided the only difference between groups was the incentive strategy.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality. Of 5765 records identified, 57 records (51 unique trials; n = 17 773 participants) were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Random-effects models pooling data for each of the 5 PA domains.

RESULTS

Financial incentives increase leisure time PA (gym or class attendance; standardized mean difference [95% CI], 0.46 [0.28-0.63], n = 5057) and walking behavior (steps walked; 0.25 [0.13-0.36], n = 3254). No change in total minutes of PA (0.52 [-0.09 to 1.12], n = 968), kilocalories expended (0.19 [-0.06 to 0.44], n = 247), or the proportion of participants meeting PA guidelines (risk ratio [95% CI] 1.53 [0.53-4.44], n = 650) postintervention was observed. After intervention has ceased, incentives sustain a slight increase in leisure time PA (0.10 [0.02-0.18], n = 2678) and walking behavior (0.11 [0.00-0.22], n = 2425).

CONCLUSIONS

Incentives probably improve leisure time PA and walking at intervention end, and small improvements may be sustained over time once incentives have ceased. They lead to little or no difference in kilocalories expended or minutes of PA. It is uncertain whether incentives change the likelihood of meeting PA guidelines because the certainty of the evidence is low.

Financial incentives for physical activity in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The use of financial incentives to promote physical activity (PA) has grown in popularity due in part to technological advances that make it easier to track and reward PA. The purpose of this study was to update the evidence on the effects of incentives on PA in adults.

Data sources

Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CCTR, CINAHL and COCH.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) published between 2012 and May 2018 examining the impact of incentives on PA.

Design

A simple count of studies with positive and null effects (‘vote counting’) was conducted. Random-effects meta-analyses were also undertaken for studies reporting steps per day for intervention and post-intervention periods.

Results

23 studies involving 6074 participants were included (64.42% female, mean age = 41.20 years). 20 out of 22 studies reported positive intervention effects and four out of 18 reported post-intervention (after incentives withdrawn) benefits. Among the 12 of 23 studies included in the meta-analysis, incentives were associated with increased mean daily step counts during the intervention period (pooled mean difference (MD), 607.1; 95% CI: 422.1 to 792.1). Among the nine of 12 studies with post-intervention daily step count data incentives were associated with increased mean daily step counts (pooled MD, 513.8; 95% CI:312.7 to 714.9).

Conclusion

Demonstrating rising interest in financial incentives, 23 RCTs were identified. Modest incentives ($1.40 US/day) increased PA for interventions of short and long durations and after incentives were removed, though post-intervention ‘vote counting’ and pooled results did not align. Nonetheless, and contrary to what has been previously reported, these findings suggest a short-term incentive ‘dose’ may promote sustained PA.