4.6 Article

Physical Activity Loyalty Cards for Behavior Change A Quasi-Experimental Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages 56-63

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.022

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Prevention Research Initiative (NPRI) [G0802045]
  2. Alzheimer's Research Trust
  3. Alzheimer's Society
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  5. British Heart Foundation
  6. Cancer Research UK
  7. Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorate
  8. Department of Health
  9. Diabetes UK
  10. Economic and Social Research Council
  11. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  12. Health and Social Care Research and Development Division of the Public Health Agency (HSC RD Division)
  13. Medical Research Council
  14. Stroke Association
  15. Welsh Assembly Government
  16. World Cancer Research Fund
  17. Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland [M6003CPH]
  18. ESRC [ES/G007438/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  19. MRC [G0802045, MR/K023241/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  20. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G007438/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  21. Medical Research Council [MR/K023241/1, G0802045] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Financial incentives have been advocated by the UK and U.S. governments to encourage adoption of healthy lifestyles. However, evidence to support the use of incentives for changing physical activity (PA) behavior is sparse. Purpose: To investigate the effectiveness of financial incentives to increase PA in adults in the workplace. Design: Two-arm quasi-experimental design. Setting/participants: Employees (n=406) in a workplace setting in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. Intervention: Using a loyalty card to collect points and earn rewards, participants (n=199) in the Incentive Group monitored their PA levels and received financial incentives (retail vouchers) for minutes of PA completed over the course of a 12-week intervention period. Participants (n=207) in the comparison group used their loyalty card to self-monitor their PA levels but were not able to earn points or obtain incentives (No Incentive Group). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was minutes of PA objectively measured using a novel PA tracking system at baseline (April 2011); Week 6 (June 2011); and Week 12 (July 2011). Other outcomes, including a self-report measure of PA, were collected at baseline, Week 12, and 6 months (October 2011). Data were analyzed in June 2012. Results: No significant differences between groups were found for primary or secondary outcomes at the 12-week and 6-month assessments. Participants in the Incentive Group recorded 17.52 minutes of PA/week (95% CI=12.49, 22.56) compared to 16.63 minutes/week (95% CI=11.76, 21.51) in the No Incentive Group at Week 12 (p=0.59). At 6 months, participants in the Incentive Group recorded 26.18 minutes of PA/week (95% CI=20.06, 32.29) compared to 24.00 minutes/week (95% CI=17.45, 30.54) in the No Incentive Group (p=0.45). Conclusions: Financial incentives did not encourage participants to undertake more PA than self-monitoring PA. This study contributes to the evidence base and has important implications for increasing participation in physical activity and fostering links with the business sector.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available