Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme for physical activity behaviour change maintenance: results from a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101217089 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1479-5868 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14795868 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, c2004-

Cost-Benefit Analysis* ; Exercise* ; Health Behavior*; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Cluster Analysis ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Female ; Government Employees ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Public Sector ; Quality of Life ; Socioeconomic Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

Background: We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme based intervention involving rewards for increasing physical activity in public sector employees.
Methods: A cluster randomised wait-list controlled trial in public sector organisations in Northern Ireland. We randomly assigned clusters (1:1) using a computer generated random sequence. Researchers were masked to allocation, but participants were not. Employees aged 18-65 years with no self-reported medical contraindications to physical activity were included. The Physical Activity Loyalty Scheme (PAL) intervention was based on high-street loyalty cards where participants earned points for minutes of activity that could be redeemed for rewards, complemented by evidence-based behaviour change techniques. The primary outcome was objectively measured mean steps/day at 6 months using a validated pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW-701) over 7 days, assessed with intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included health, mental wellbeing, quality of life, work absenteeism and presenteeism, and use of healthcare resources. Cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and mediation analyses were conducted. Trial registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN17975376.
Results: Between September 2014 and October 2015, we recruited and randomly assigned 37 clusters (from nine organisations; mean clusters per organisation = four) and 853 participants to the intervention (n = 19 with 457 participants) or control group (n = 18 with 396 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 249 (54·4%) intervention and 236 (59·6%) control participants. Mean steps/day were significantly lower in the intervention vs control group (adjusted mean difference = - 336, 95% CI: -612 to - 60, p = 0·02) at 6 months. Participants redeemed only 39% (SD 43%) of their earned points. Using the Quality Adjusted Life Year outcome, the intervention was not cost effective from an NHS/PSS perspective. A net cost analysis from an employer perspective demonstrated the intervention group was associated with a mean of 2·97 h less absenteeism over a 4 week period (p = 0·62), which could result in net savings ranging from £66 to £735 depending on the wage rate employed. At 4-weeks post-baseline there were significant increases in identified regulation, integrated regulation, intrinsic motivation, social norms and intentions in intervention compared to control participants.
Conclusions: Our mixed results pose challenges that are too infrequently exposed in public heath intervention trials. Although the intervention successfully altered several hypothesised mediating constructs it did not translate into long-term behaviour change. Our incentive level may have been too low to incentivise change, despite being designed a priori by a Contingent Valuation Survey. There were also major re-structuring of several organisations which presented significant implementation challenges, and technical limitations.
Trial Registration: ISRCTN17975376 (Registered 19/09/2014).

Health Psychol. 2013 Sep;32(9):950-7. (PMID: 24001245)
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Jan;69(1):95-8. (PMID: 25403381)
Epidemiology. 2014 Mar;25(2):165. (PMID: 24487197)
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 01;10(4):e0122474. (PMID: 25830782)
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 22;16:618. (PMID: 27448663)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;(4):CD009209. (PMID: 23633368)
Am J Public Health. 2011 Apr;101(4):751-8. (PMID: 21330590)
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 10;13:953. (PMID: 24112295)
Am J Prev Med. 2009 Oct;37(4):330-9. (PMID: 19765506)
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Nov;192:125-133. (PMID: 28965003)
Health Promot Int. 2012 Jun;27(2):238-49. (PMID: 21733915)
Br J Health Psychol. 2014 Feb;19(1):149-80. (PMID: 23827053)
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Apr;44(4):406-415. (PMID: 23498108)
Public Health. 2013 Feb;127(2):164-70. (PMID: 23332513)
Ann Behav Med. 2018 May 18;52(6):513-529. (PMID: 29672666)
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Jul;45(1):56-63. (PMID: 23790989)
J Health Econ. 1999 Jun;18(3):341-64. (PMID: 10537899)
Med Decis Making. 2016 Jan;36(1):48-58. (PMID: 25977362)
Public Health. 2018 Jul;160:70-76. (PMID: 29751224)
BMJ. 2010 Aug 27;341:c4413. (PMID: 20802000)
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Apr 19;21(4):e11394. (PMID: 31002304)

PHR/12/211/82 United Kingdom DH_ Department of Health; United Kingdom BHF_ British Heart Foundation; United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; United Kingdom WT_ Wellcome Trust; United Kingdom CRUK_ Cancer Research UK

Keywords: Adults; Behaviour change; Cost-effectiveness; Effectiveness; Incentives; Intervention; Physical activity

ISRCTN ISRCTN17975376

Date Created: 20181214 Date Completed: 20190218 Latest Revision: 20231004

20240829

PMC6291971

10.1186/s12966-018-0758-1

30541563