Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Not yet recruiting
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06395233 |
Other study ID # |
18-IHIREC |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Not yet recruiting |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
April 29, 2024 |
Est. completion date |
July 29, 2024 |
Study information
Verified date |
April 2024 |
Source |
University College, London |
Contact |
Hannah McCarthy, MA |
Phone |
07487680514 |
Email |
hannah.mccarthy.16[@]ucl.ac.uk |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
This study aims to test the effectiveness of different types of incentives to motivate
walking among people who use a tracker app. App users will be randomly allocated to three
groups, Group 1 will received assured incentives in the form of points per minute of walking,
Group 2 will received non-assured incentives in the form of prize draw tickets, one ticket
per minute of walking and Group 3 will receive a combination of the two.
App-users will be invited to join the study and those who consent to joining will track their
walking activity for 12 weeks using the BetterPoints app. Participants will also be asked to
complete a survey at the start and end of the study period to assess motivation and
responsiveness to reward.
At the end of the 12 weeks intervention period, changes in minutes of walking from the start
of the study to three follow up time points will be assessed and compared between groups.
Total minutes of walking will also be compared between groups. Differences in reported levels
of autonomous motivation will be assessed between the start and end of the study and between
groups.
Description:
It is well established that physical activity reduces risks of common noncommunicable
diseases. It is predicted that 65 million people in the United Kingdom will use a smartphone
by 2025. With such reach, mobile apps show promise as an intervention to promote physical
activity. Although systematic reviews suggest that financial incentives are effective in
encouraging physical activity, their cost effectiveness at population level is still unknown.
Studies combining apps and incentives suggest that the size of the incentive is not as
important as the type, timing and content, which has implications for the affordability of
interventions.
Two types of incentive used in apps are assured rewards that are earned per step/minute of
physical activity, and lottery incentives, where activity is rewarded with more entries to
prize draws. Whether assured or won in a lottery, rewards are in the form of a digital
currency that can then be redeemed for shopping vouchers or donated to charity.
The cost of giving out assured rewards is dependent upon the number of users and their level
of activity. With lottery-based approaches, costs can be fixed. That is, the prize(s) in the
lottery are fixed regardless of the number of users and their activity. However, this means
the expected win per user per activity falls with more users and users being more active. The
evidence comparing lottery-based incentives is limited. Patel and colleagues compared
different lottery conditions over 13 weeks and found that a combined approach offering an 18%
chance of winning $5 and 1% chance of winning $50, was more effective than a high
frequency-low pay out or jackpot. No research could be found that directly compared
lottery-based approaches with assured incentives. This is the gap which the current trial
aims to fill.
The present study aims to assess the efficacy of an assured vs lottery vs combined incentive
in fostering physical activity. Insights from the study could help develop scalable,
cost-effective interventions to improve public health outcomes.