1
|
Reese PP, Barankay I, Putt M, Russell LB, Yan J, Zhu J, Huang Q, Loewenstein G, Andersen R, Testa H, Mussell AS, Pagnotti D, Wesby LE, Hoffer K, Volpp KG. Effect of Financial Incentives for Process, Outcomes, or Both on Cholesterol Level Change: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2121908. [PMID: 34605920 PMCID: PMC8491106 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21908] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Importance Financial incentives may improve health behaviors. It is unknown whether incentives are more effective if they target a key process (eg, medication adherence), an outcome (eg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels), or both. Objective To determine whether financial incentives awarded daily for process (adherence to statins), awarded quarterly for outcomes (personalized LDL-C level targets), or awarded for process plus outcomes induce reductions in LDL-C levels compared with control. Design, Setting, and Participants A randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 12, 2015, to October 3, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 4, 2018, to May 27, 2021, at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia. Participants included 764 adults with an active statin prescription, elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C level, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Interventions Interventions lasted 12 months. All participants received a smart pill bottle to measure adherence and underwent LDL-C measurement every 3 months. In the process group, daily financial incentives were awarded for statin adherence. In the outcomes group, participants received incentives for achieving or sustaining at least a quarterly 10-mg/dL LDL-C level reduction. The process plus outcomes group participants were eligible for incentives split between statin adherence and quarterly LDL-C level targets. Main Outcomes and Measures Change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months, determined using intention-to-treat analysis. Results Of the 764 participants, 390 were women (51.2%); mean (SD) age was 62.4 (10.0) years, 310 (40.6%) had diabetes, 298 (39.0%) had hypertension, and mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 138.8 (37.6) mg/dL. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were -36.9 mg/dL (95% CI, -42.0 to -31.9 mg/dL) among control participants, -40.0 mg/dL (95% CI, -44.7 to -35.4 mg/dL) among process participants, -41.6 mg/dL (95% CI, -46.3 to -37.0 mg/dL) among outcomes participants, and -42.8 mg/dL (95% CI, -47.4 to -38.1 mg/dL) among process plus outcomes participants. In exploratory analysis among participants with diabetes and hypertension, no spillover effects of incentives were detected compared with the control group on hemoglobin A1c level and blood pressure over 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, process-, outcomes-, or process plus outcomes-based financial incentives did not improve LDL-C levels vs control. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02246959.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter P. Reese
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Leonard Davis Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Iwan Barankay
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Management, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Mary Putt
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Louise B. Russell
- Leonard Davis Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Jiali Yan
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Qian Huang
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - George Loewenstein
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Rolf Andersen
- The Heart Group, Lancaster General Health/Penn Medicine, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
- Research Institute, Lancaster General Health/Penn Medicine, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
| | - Heidi Testa
- The Heart Group, Lancaster General Health/Penn Medicine, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
- Research Institute, Lancaster General Health/Penn Medicine, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
| | - Adam S. Mussell
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - David Pagnotti
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Lisa E. Wesby
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Karen Hoffer
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Kevin G. Volpp
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Leonard Davis Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Glanz K, Shaw PA, Kwong PL, Choi JR, Chung A, Zhu J, Huang QE, Hoffer K, Volpp KG. Effect of Financial Incentives and Environmental Strategies on Weight Loss in the Healthy Weigh Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2124132. [PMID: 34491350 PMCID: PMC8424479 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.24132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Modest weight loss can lead to meaningful risk reduction in adults with obesity. Although both behavioral economic incentives and environmental change strategies have shown promise for initial weight loss, to date they have not been combined, or compared, in a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE To test the relative effectiveness of financial incentives and environmental strategies, alone and in combination, on initial weight loss and maintenance of weight loss in adults with obesity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical trial was conducted from 2015 to 2019 at 3 large employers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A 2-by-2 factorial design was used to compare the effects of lottery-based financial incentives, environmental strategies, and their combination vs usual care on weight loss and maintenance. Interventions were delivered via website, text messages, and social media. Participants included adult employees with a body mass index (BMI; weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 to 55 and at least 1 other cardiovascular risk factor. Data analysis was performed from June to July 2021. INTERVENTIONS Interventions included lottery-based financial incentives based on meeting weight loss goals, environmental change strategies tailored for individuals and delivered by text messages and social media, and combined incentives and environmental strategies. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES The primary outcome was weight change from baseline to 18 months, measured in person. RESULTS A total of 344 participants were enrolled, with 86 participants each randomized to the financial incentives group, environmental strategies group, combined financial incentives and environmental strategies group, and usual care (control) group. Participants had a mean (SD) age of 45.6 (10.5) years and a mean (SD) BMI of 36.5 (7.1); 247 participants (71.8%) were women, 172 (50.0%) were Black, and 138 (40.1%) were White. At the primary end point of 18 months, participants in the incentives group lost a mean of 5.4 lb (95% CI, -11.3 to 0.5 lb [mean, 2.45 kg; 95% CI, -5.09 to 0.23 kg]), those in the environmental strategies group lost a mean of a 2.2 lb (95% CI, -7.7 to 3.3 lb [mean, 1.00 kg; 95% CI, -3.47 to 1.49 kg]), and the combination group lost a mean of 2.4 lb (95% CI, -8.2 to 3.3 lb [mean, 1.09 kg; 95% CI, -3.69 to 1.49 kg]) more than participants in the usual care group. Financial incentives, environmental change strategies, and their combination were not significantly more effective than usual care. At 24 months, after 6 months without an intervention, the difference in the change from baseline was similar to the 18-month results, with no significant differences among groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial, across all study groups, participants lost a modest amount of weight but those who received financial incentives, environmental change, or the combined intervention did not lose significantly more weight than those in the usual care group. Employees with obesity may benefit from more intensive individualized weight loss strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02878343.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen Glanz
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Pamela A. Shaw
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Pui L. Kwong
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Ji Rebekah Choi
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Annie Chung
- Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Qian Erin Huang
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Karen Hoffer
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Kevin G. Volpp
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Faith MS, Cochran WC, Diewald L, Hoffer K, Moore R, Berkowitz RI, Hauer CA, Stettler-Davis N, Tripicchio G, Rukstalis MR. Group lifestyle modification vs. lifestyle newsletters for early childhood obesity: Pilot study in rural primary care. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jbct.2021.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
|
4
|
Barankay I, Reese PP, Putt ME, Russell LB, Loewenstein G, Pagnotti D, Yan J, Zhu J, McGilloway R, Brennan T, Finnerty D, Hoffer K, Chadha S, Volpp KG. Effect of Patient Financial Incentives on Statin Adherence and Lipid Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e2019429. [PMID: 33034639 PMCID: PMC7547367 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19429] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Financial incentives can improve medication adherence and cardiovascular disease risk, but the optimal design to promote sustained adherence after incentives are discontinued is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether 6-month interventions involving different financial incentives to encourage statin adherence reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline to 12 months. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This 4-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 to July 2018 among several large US insurer or employer populations and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The study population included adults with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C control, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Data analysis was performed from July 2017 to June 2019. INTERVENTIONS The interventions lasted 6 months during which all participants received daily medication reminders and an electronic pill bottle. Statin adherence was measured by opening the bottle. For participants randomized to the 3 intervention groups, adherence was rewarded with financial incentives. The sweepstakes group involved incentives for daily adherence. In the deadline sweepstakes group, incentives were reduced if participants were adherent only after a reminder. The sweepstakes plus deposit contract group split incentives between daily adherence and a monthly deposit reduced for each day of nonadherence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months. RESULTS Among 805 participants randomized (199 in the simple daily sweepstakes group, 204 in the deadline sweepstakes group, 201 in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group, and 201 in the control group), the mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.3) years; 519 participants (64.5%) were women, 514 (63.9%) had diabetes, and 273 (33.9%) had cardiovascular disease. The mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 143.2 (42.5) mg/dL. Measured adherence at 6 months (defined as the proportion of 180 days with electronic pill bottle opening) in the control group (0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) was lower than that in the simple sweepstakes group (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), the deadline sweepstakes group (0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) (P < .001 for each incentive group vs control). LDL-C levels were measured for 636 participants at 12 months. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Compared with the control group, different financial incentives improved measured statin adherence but not LDL-C levels. This result points to the importance of directly measuring health outcomes, rather than simply adherence, in trials aimed at improving health behaviors. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iwan Barankay
- Department of Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Peter P. Reese
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Mary E. Putt
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Louise B. Russell
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - George Loewenstein
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - David Pagnotti
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Jiali Yan
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Ryan McGilloway
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Troyen Brennan
- Department of Health Policy and Management, T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts
- CVS Health, Woonsocket, Rhode Island
| | - Darra Finnerty
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Karen Hoffer
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | | | - Kevin G. Volpp
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Putt ME, Reese PP, Volpp KG, Russell LB, Loewenstein G, Yan J, Pagnotti D, McGilloway R, Brennen T, Finnerty D, Hoffer K, Chadha S, Barankay I. The Habit Formation trial of behavioral economic interventions to improve statin use and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease: Rationale, design and methodologies. Clin Trials 2019; 16:399-409. [PMID: 31148473 PMCID: PMC6663645 DOI: 10.1177/1740774519846852] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Low adherence to statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) medication is common. Here, we report on the design and implementation of the Habit Formation trial. This clinical trial assessed whether the interventions, based on principles from behavioral economics, might improve statin adherence and lipid control in at-risk populations. We describe the rationale and methods for the trial, recruitment, conduct and follow-up. We also report on several barriers we encountered with recruitment and conduct of the trial, solutions we devised and efforts we will make to assess their impact on our study. METHODS Habit Formation is a four-arm randomized controlled trial. Recruitment of 805 participants at elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with evidence of sub-optimal statin adherence and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) control is complete. Initially, we recruited from large employers (Employers) and a national health insurance company (Insurers) using mailed letters; individuals with a statin Medication Possession Ratio less than 80% were invited to participate. Respondents were enrolled if a laboratory measurement of low-density lipoprotein was >130 mg/dL. Subsequently, we recruited participants from the Penn Medicine Health System; individuals with usual-care low-density lipoprotein of >100 mg/dL in the electronic medical record were recruited using phone, text, email, and regular mail. Eligible participants self-reported incomplete medication adherence. During a 6-month intervention period, all participants received a wireless-enabled pill bottle for their statins and daily reminder messages to take their medication. Principles of behavioral economics were used to design three financial incentives, specifically a Simple Daily Sweepstakes rewarding daily medication adherence, a Deadline Sweepstakes where participants received either a full or reduced incentive depending on whether they took their medication before or after a daily reminder or Sweepstakes Plus Deposit Contract with incentives divided between daily sweepstakes and a monthly deposit. Six months post-incentives, we compared the primary outcome, mean change from baseline low-density lipoprotein, across arms. RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED Health system recruitment yielded substantially better enrollment and was cost-efficient. Despite unexpected systematic failure and/or poor availability of two wireless pill bottles, we achieved enrollment targets and implemented the interventions. For new trials, we will routinely monitor device function and have contingency plans in the event of systemic failure. CONCLUSION Interventions used in the Habit Formation trial could be translated into clinical practice. Within a large health system, successful recruitment depended on identification of eligible individuals through their electronic medical record, along with flexible ways of contacting these individuals. Challenges with device failure were manageable. The study will add to our understanding of optimally structuring and implementing incentives to motivate durable behavior change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary E Putt
- 1 Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Peter P Reese
- 1 Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 2 Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 8 The Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 4 Corporal Michael Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 8 The Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Louise B Russell
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 8 The Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - George Loewenstein
- 5 Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Jiali Yan
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David Pagnotti
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ryan McGilloway
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Troyen Brennen
- 6 Department of Health Policy & Management, T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Darra Finnerty
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Karen Hoffer
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Sakshum Chadha
- 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Iwan Barankay
- 7 Department of Management and Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Liu T, Volpp KG, Asch DA, Zhu J, Wang W, Wu R, Troxel AB, Finnerty DD, Hoffer K, Shea JA. The association of financial incentives for low density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with patient activation and motivation. Prev Med Rep 2019; 14:100841. [PMID: 30911461 PMCID: PMC6416647 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100841] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2018] [Revised: 02/24/2019] [Accepted: 03/02/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
There is growing interest in using financial incentives for patients to improve medication adherence, but few studies have evaluated whether financial incentives are associated with patients' activation and motivation. We analyzed survey data collected as part of a randomized clinical trial conducted from 2011 to 2014 of four financial incentive interventions to reduce low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among patients at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The main trial included 1503 patients aged 18–80 and recruited from primary care practices affiliated with three health systems. Participants were randomized into four groups: patient financial incentives, primary care physicians (PCPs) incentives, patients and PCPs shared incentives, or no incentives for LDL-C control. Patient Activation Measure (PAM) and Treatment Self Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) surveys were administered at baseline and 12 months. Clinical outcomes were change in LDL-C at 12 and 15 months and average medication adherence as measured by electronic pill bottle opening. Mean changes in PAM and TSRQ scores were compared between patients eligible and not eligible for incentives. Clinical outcomes were tested against baseline and change in psychosocial measures using bivariate and multivariate regression. Change in PAM score and TSRQ autonomous subscore did not differ significantly between patients eligible and not eligible for incentives. Lower baseline and greater increase in TSRQ autonomous subscore were predictive of greater 15-month decrease in LDL-C. A financial incentive intervention to improve LDL-C control was not associated with changes in patients' activation or autonomous motivation. Increases in patient autonomous motivation are predictive of long-term LDL-C control. Financial incentives for lipid control were not associated with changes in activation or motivation. Participants had high activation and motivation levels at baseline. Increases in autonomous motivation were associated with better lipid control at 15 months.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tianyu Liu
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America.,Department of Veterans Affairs, 3900 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - David A Asch
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America.,Department of Veterans Affairs, 3900 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Wenli Wang
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Ruoming Wu
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Andrea B Troxel
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Darra D Finnerty
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Karen Hoffer
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| | - Judy A Shea
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Glanz K, Shaw PA, Hoffer K, Chung A, Zhu J, Wu R, Huang QE, Choi JR, Volpp KG. The Healthy Weigh study of lottery-based incentives and environmental strategies for weight loss: Design and baseline characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials 2018; 76:24-30. [PMID: 30455160 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.10.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2018] [Revised: 10/18/2018] [Accepted: 10/25/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
Identifying effective strategies for treating obesity is a clinical challenge and a public health priority. The present study is an innovative test of the relative effectiveness of lottery-based financial incentives and environmental strategies on weight loss and maintenance. The Healthy Weigh study is evaluating the comparative effectiveness of behavioral economic financial incentives and environmental strategies, separately and together, in achieving initial weight loss and maintenance of weight loss, in obese urban employee populations. Healthy Weigh is a multi-site, 4-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which 344 employed participants were randomized to one of four arms. The study arms are: 1) standard employee wellness benefits and weigh-ins every 6 months (control arm/usual care); and the control/usual care plus either: 2) daily lottery incentives tied to achievement of weight loss goals (incentive arm); 3) individually tailored environmental strategies around food intake and physical activity (environmental arm); or 4) a combination of incentives and environmental strategies (combined arm). This trial used a web-based platform to enroll, communicate with, and track participant weight change. Wireless scales were used by participants in the three treatment group arms to digitally transmit daily/weekly weights. For females, the baseline median (interquartile range, IQR) for BMI and weight were 37.0 (33.5, 40.6) and 219.9 (198.1, 248.6), respectively; and for males, they were 36.0 (32.8, 39.8) and 247.9 (228.1, 279.5), respectively. The population was generally well-educated. This study demonstrated that multi-site employee-based recruitment for a weight-control intervention study is feasible but may need additional time for coordination between diverse environments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen Glanz
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, 801 Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Pamela A Shaw
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, 6th Floor Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Karen Hoffer
- University of Pennsylvania Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, 423 Guardian Drive, 11th Floor Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Annie Chung
- University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, 801 Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- University of Pennsylvania Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, 423 Guardian Drive, 11th Floor Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Ruoming Wu
- University of Pennsylvania Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, 423 Guardian Drive, 11th Floor Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Qian Erin Huang
- University of Pennsylvania Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, 423 Guardian Drive, 11th Floor Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Ji Rebekah Choi
- University of Pennsylvania Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, 423 Guardian Drive, 11th Floor Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- University of Pennsylvania Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, 423 Guardian Drive, 11th Floor Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Patel MS, Volpp KG, Rosin R, Bellamy SL, Small DS, Heuer J, Sproat S, Hyson C, Haff N, Lee SM, Wesby L, Hoffer K, Shuttleworth D, Taylor DH, Hilbert V, Zhu J, Yang L, Wang X, Asch DA. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Lottery-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults. Am J Health Promot 2018. [PMID: 29534597 DOI: 10.1177/0890117118758932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of lottery-based financial incentives in increasing physical activity. DESIGN Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING University of Pennsylvania Employees. PARTICIPANTS A total of 209 adults with body mass index ≥27. INTERVENTIONS All participants used smartphones to track activity, were given a goal of 7000 steps per day, and received daily feedback on performance for 26 weeks. Participants randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 intervention arms received a financial incentive for 13 weeks and then were followed for 13 weeks without incentives. Daily lottery incentives were designed as a "higher frequency, smaller reward" (1 in 4 chance of winning $5), "jackpot" (1 in 400 chance of winning $500), or "combined lottery" (18% chance of $5 and 1% chance of $50). MEASURES Mean proportion of participant days step goals were achieved. ANALYSIS Multivariate regression. RESULTS During the intervention, the unadjusted mean proportion of participant days that goal was achieved was 0.26 in the control arm, 0.32 in the higher frequency, smaller reward lottery arm, 0.29 in the jackpot arm, and 0.38 in the combined lottery arm. In adjusted models, only the combined lottery arm was significantly greater than control ( P = .01). The jackpot arm had a significant decline of 0.13 ( P < .001) compared to control. There were no significant differences during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Combined lottery incentives were most effective in increasing physical activity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitesh S Patel
- 1 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,2 Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,4 The Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,5 Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- 1 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,2 Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,4 The Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,5 Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Roy Rosin
- 4 The Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Scarlett L Bellamy
- 6 The Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Dylan S Small
- 2 Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jack Heuer
- 7 Division of Human Resources, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Susan Sproat
- 7 Division of Human Resources, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Chris Hyson
- 7 Division of Human Resources, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Nancy Haff
- 8 Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Samantha M Lee
- 9 Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lisa Wesby
- 3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Karen Hoffer
- 3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David Shuttleworth
- 3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Devon H Taylor
- 3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Victoria Hilbert
- 3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- 3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Lin Yang
- 1 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Xingmei Wang
- 1 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- 1 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,2 Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,3 LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,5 Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Rosenthal MB, Troxel AB, Volpp KG, Stewart WF, Sequist TD, Jones JB, Hirsch AG, Hoffer K, Zhu J, Wang W, Hodlofski A, Finnerty D, Huang JJ, Asch DA. Moderating Effects of Patient Characteristics on the Impact of Financial Incentives. Med Care Res Rev 2017; 76:56-72. [PMID: 29148344 DOI: 10.1177/1077558717707313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
While financial incentives to providers or patients are increasingly common as a quality improvement strategy, their impact on patient subgroups and health care disparities is unclear. To examine these patterns, we analyzed data from a randomized clinical trial of financial incentives to lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. Patients with higher baseline LDL experienced greater cholesterol reductions in the shared incentive arm (0.23 mg/dL per unit change in baseline LDL, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.00]) but were also less likely to have medication potency increases in the physician incentive arm ( OR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.97, 0.996]). Uninsured patients and those of race other than Black or White were less likely to have potency increases in the shared incentive arm ( OR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.03, 0.70] and OR = 0.09, 95% CI [0.01, 0.93], respectively). These findings suggest some differential response to incentives, particularly in the form of targeted medication changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Kevin G Volpp
- 3 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,4 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC
| | | | | | | | | | - Karen Hoffer
- 3 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- 3 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Wenli Wang
- 3 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | | - Jack J Huang
- 1 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- 3 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.,4 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Shea JA, Adejare A, Volpp KG, Troxel AB, Finnerty D, Hoffer K, Isaac T, Rosenthal M, Sequist TD, Asch DA. Patients' views of a behavioral intervention including financial incentives. Am J Manag Care 2017; 23:366-371. [PMID: 28817301 PMCID: PMC6171344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Clinical trials are increasingly testing the effectiveness of paying patients' financial incentives for achieving desired clinical outcomes. Some researchers and providers are concerned that patient financial incentives will harm the doctor-patient relationship. How patients feel about these approaches, and these trials, is largely unknown. This study examined patients' perceptions of a compound behavioral and financial incentive intervention used in a large multicenter trial to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), including their perceptions of benefits and challenges and the study's effect on patients' relationship with their primary care physicians (PCPs). STUDY DESIGN Semi-structured telephone interviews with patients post intervention. METHODS PCPs from 3 primary care practices in the northeastern United States were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: physician financial incentives, patient financial incentives, shared incentives between physicians and patients, and a control arm. Within each arm, 10 high, 10 medium, and 10 low performers in LDL-C reduction were interviewed. Interviews targeted reasons for enrolling in the study, the specific intervention elements that helped them reach the goal (incentives, engagement, monitoring), challenges faced in reducing cholesterol, and the impact of study participation on their relationship with their PCP. RESULTS Patients reported positive experiences with the study: 65% described personal changes to improve health and 61% reported increased awareness. Views about financial incentives varied: 71% clearly found them motivating and 36% claimed they made no difference. Patients noted that changing lifestyle (36%) and diet (65%) was difficult. Patients who substantially lowered their LDL-C revealed themes similar to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS Overall, behavioral interventions with financial incentives appear to be socially acceptable to patients who participate in them. Both adherence monitoring and financial incentives were well received, with little effect on the physician-patient relationship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judy A Shea
- Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 1229 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Liu T, Asch DA, Volpp KG, Zhu J, Wang W, Troxel AB, Adejare A, Finnerty DD, Hoffer K, Shea JA. Physician attitudes toward participating in a financial incentive program for LDL reduction are associated with patient outcomes. Healthc (Amst) 2016; 5:119-124. [PMID: 27932264 DOI: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2016] [Revised: 08/03/2016] [Accepted: 09/14/2016] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Tianyu Liu
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Wenli Wang
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Karen Hoffer
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Judy A Shea
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Patel MS, Volpp KG, Rosin R, Bellamy SL, Small DS, Fletcher MA, Osman-Koss R, Brady JL, Haff N, Lee SM, Wesby L, Hoffer K, Shuttleworth D, Taylor DH, Hilbert V, Zhu J, Yang L, Wang X, Asch DA. A Randomized Trial of Social Comparison Feedback and Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity. Am J Health Promot 2016; 30:416-24. [PMID: 27422252 PMCID: PMC6029434 DOI: 10.1177/0890117116658195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitesh S Patel
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Roy Rosin
- Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Scarlett L Bellamy
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Dylan S Small
- Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Michele A Fletcher
- University of Pennsylvania Health System, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Rosemary Osman-Koss
- University of Pennsylvania Health System, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jennifer L Brady
- University of Pennsylvania Health System, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Nancy Haff
- Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Samantha M Lee
- Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lisa Wesby
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Karen Hoffer
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David Shuttleworth
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Devon H Taylor
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Victoria Hilbert
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Lin Yang
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Xingmei Wang
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Patel MS, Asch DA, Rosin R, Small DS, Bellamy SL, Eberbach K, Walters KJ, Haff N, Lee SM, Wesby L, Hoffer K, Shuttleworth D, Taylor DH, Hilbert V, Zhu J, Yang L, Wang X, Volpp KG. Individual Versus Team-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med 2016; 31:746-54. [PMID: 26976287 PMCID: PMC4907949 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-016-3627-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2015] [Revised: 11/16/2015] [Accepted: 02/01/2016] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of individual versus team-based financial incentives to increase physical activity. DESIGN Randomized, controlled trial comparing three interventions to control. PARTICIPANTS Three hundred and four adult employees from an organization in Philadelphia formed 76 four-member teams. INTERVENTIONS 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). MAIN MEASURES Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000 step goal during the intervention. KEY RESULTS 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). CONCLUSIONS Financial incentives rewarded for a combination of individual and team performance were most effective for increasing physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02001194.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitesh S Patel
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - David A Asch
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Roy Rosin
- Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Dylan S Small
- The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Scarlett L Bellamy
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | | - Nancy Haff
- Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Lisa Wesby
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Karen Hoffer
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David Shuttleworth
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Devon H Taylor
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Victoria Hilbert
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jingsan Zhu
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Lin Yang
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Xingmei Wang
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- LDI Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Patel MS, Asch DA, Rosin R, Small DS, Bellamy SL, Heuer J, Sproat S, Hyson C, Haff N, Lee SM, Wesby L, Hoffer K, Shuttleworth D, Taylor DH, Hilbert V, Zhu J, Yang L, Wang X, Volpp KG. Framing Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164:385-94. [PMID: 26881417 PMCID: PMC6029433 DOI: 10.7326/m15-1635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 160] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Financial incentive designs to increase physical activity have not been well-examined. OBJECTIVE To test the effectiveness of 3 methods to frame financial incentives to increase physical activity among overweight and obese adults. DESIGN Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 02030119). SETTING University of Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS 281 adult employees (body mass index ≥27 kg/m2). INTERVENTION 13-week intervention. Participants had a goal of 7000 steps per day and were randomly assigned to a control group with daily feedback or 1 of 3 financial incentive programs with daily feedback: a gain incentive ($1.40 given each day the goal was achieved), lottery incentive (daily eligibility [expected value approximately $1.40] if goal was achieved), or loss incentive ($42 allocated monthly upfront and $1.40 removed each day the goal was not achieved). Participants were followed for another 13 weeks with daily performance feedback but no incentives. MEASUREMENTS Primary outcome was the mean proportion of participant-days that the 7000-step goal was achieved during the intervention. Secondary outcomes included the mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal during follow-up and the mean daily steps during intervention and follow-up. RESULTS The mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.37) in the control group, 0.35 (CI, 0.28 to 0.42) in the gain-incentive group, 0.36 (CI, 0.29 to 0.43) in the lottery-incentive group, and 0.45 (CI, 0.38 to 0.52) in the loss-incentive group. In adjusted analyses, only the loss-incentive group had a significantly greater mean proportion of participant-days achieving the goal than control (adjusted difference, 0.16 [CI, 0.06 to 0.26]; P = 0.001), but the adjusted difference in mean daily steps was not significant (861 [CI, 24 to 1746]; P = 0.056). During follow-up, daily steps decreased for all incentive groups and were not different from control. LIMITATION Single employer. CONCLUSION Financial incentives framed as a loss were most effective for achieving physical activity goals. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Institute on Aging.
Collapse
|
15
|
Asch DA, Troxel AB, Stewart WF, Sequist TD, Jones JB, Hirsch AG, Hoffer K, Zhu J, Wang W, Hodlofski A, Frasch AB, Weiner MG, Finnerty DD, Rosenthal MB, Gangemi K, Volpp KG. Effect of Financial Incentives to Physicians, Patients, or Both on Lipid Levels: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015; 314:1926-35. [PMID: 26547464 PMCID: PMC5509443 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.14850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 122] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Financial incentives to physicians or patients are increasingly used, but their effectiveness is not well established. OBJECTIVE To determine whether physician financial incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician and patient incentives are more effective than control in reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among patients with high cardiovascular risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Four-group, multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial with a 12-month intervention conducted from 2011 to 2014 in 3 primary care practices in the northeastern United States. Three hundred forty eligible primary care physicians (PCPs) were enrolled from a pool of 421. Of 25,627 potentially eligible patients of those PCPs, 1503 enrolled. Patients aged 18 to 80 years were eligible if they had a 10-year Framingham Risk Score (FRS) of 20% or greater, had coronary artery disease equivalents with LDL-C levels of 120 mg/dL or greater, or had an FRS of 10% to 20% with LDL-C levels of 140 mg/dL or greater. Investigators were blinded to study group, but participants were not. INTERVENTIONS Primary care physicians were randomly assigned to control, physician incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician-patient incentives. Physicians in the physician incentives group were eligible to receive up to $1024 per enrolled patient meeting LDL-C goals. Patients in the patient incentives group were eligible for the same amount, distributed through daily lotteries tied to medication adherence. Physicians and patients in the shared incentives group shared these incentives. Physicians and patients in the control group received no incentives tied to outcomes, but all patient participants received up to $355 each for trial participation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Change in LDL-C level at 12 months. RESULTS Patients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved a mean reduction in LDL-C of 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 30.1-37.1; baseline, 160.1 mg/dL; 12 months, 126.4 mg/dL); those in physician incentives achieved a mean reduction of 27.9 mg/dL (95% CI, 24.9-31.0; baseline, 159.9 mg/dL; 12 months, 132.0 mg/dL); those in patient incentives achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.6-28.5; baseline, 160.6 mg/dL; 12 months, 135.5 mg/dL); and those in the control group achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.7-28.5; baseline, 161.5 mg/dL; 12 months, 136.4 mg/dL; P < .001 for comparison of all 4 groups). Only patients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved reductions in LDL-C levels statistically different from those in the control group (8.5 mg/dL; 95% CI, 3.8-13.3; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In primary care practices, shared financial incentives for physicians and patients, but not incentives to physicians or patients alone, resulted in a statistically significant difference in reduction of LDL-C levels at 12 months. This reduction was modest, however, and further information is needed to understand whether this approach represents good value. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01346189.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David A Asch
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia2Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | | | - Thomas D Sequist
- Partners Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts5Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | | | | | - Wenli Wang
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | | | | | - Mark G Weiner
- Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | | | | | - Kevin G Volpp
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia2Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Sarwer DB, Ritter S, Hoffer K, Spitzer J, Volger S, Vetter M, Fabricatore AN, Williams NN, Wadden T. P-114 Physicians' attitudes about referring their type 2 diabetes patients to randomized research trials of bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2011. [DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2011.04.116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
17
|
|