Physical InactivityNCT06395233
A Test of Different Incentives and How Effectively They Motivate Walking Behaviour
A study testing BetterPoints App in people with Physical Inactivity, run by University College, London.
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… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Physical Inactivity
- What is being tested?
- BetterPoints App
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 300 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 29 Apr 2024to 29 Jul 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Existing users of the BetterPoints app. Not in sponsored programmes.
Who cannot join
- BetterPoints app users who are under 18. BetterPoints app users who are enrolled in programmes sponsored by local authorities.
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
Official title: A Randomised Trial of the Effectiveness of Lottery, Assured and Combined Incentives on App Tracked Walking Behaviour Over 12 Weeks.
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.
Read the detailed 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.
- Conditions
- Physical Inactivity
- Being tested
- BetterPoints App
- Keywords
- Incentives, Physical activity, Apps, Digital Health, Health behaviour
- Medical subject headings
- Sedentary Behavior, Motor Activity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
BetterPoints AppDevice
The BetterPoints app is a smartphone application that uses incentives and gamification to motivate physical activity.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group one: Assured Incentives | Experimental | Group 1: Assured (Points only): Participants will be able to earn 10 points for each 10 minutes of walking. Every minute will count, the participant does not have to walk for 10 consecutive minutes to receive the points. Once a person has accumulated 10 minutes of walking exercise, their points will be awarded. This will be capped at 40 points per day, i.e. the participant can earn 10 BetterPoints up to four times a day by doing 40 minutes of walking. Receives: Device: BetterPoints App |
| Group 2: Non Assured Incentives | Experimental | Group 2: Non-Assured (Lottery tickets only): Participants will be able to earn one lottery ticket for each 10 minutes of walking. This is accrued and awarded in the same way as the points condition. It is capped at four tickets per day. Receives: Device: BetterPoints App |
| Group 3: Combined | Experimental | Group 3: Combined (Combined points/tickets): Participants in group 3 will be able to earn 5 points and one lottery ticket for 10 minutes of walking. The daily lottery in this condition will be for 500 BetterPoints (rather than 1000 BetterPoints in group 2) and therefore each ticket will have an expected value (EV) of 5 BetterPoints. Participants will be able to earn points and tickets in this way for up to 40 minutes of walking per day. Receives: Device: BetterPoints App |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in weekly minutes of walking from baseline
Baseline minutes of walking behaviour will be compared to follow up time points for the three groups. Minutes of walking will be measured using a GPS app. Baseline will be the two weeks of walking before the start of the intervention period. Follow up dates will be at four, eight and twelve weeks after the start of the intervention period.
Measured: 12-weeks
Differences between groups in number of weekly minutes of walking achieved
Weekly minutes of walking will be plotted and visually inspected for differences between groups. Statistical differences in mean and median levels of walking at four, eight and twelve weeks will be tested. Proportional differences between groups in those reaching 150 minutes per week will be explored.
Measured: 12-weeks
Secondary outcomes (2)
Perceived motivation
Survey scores for autonomous motivation at the start and the end of the intervention period will be compared for changes within groups and differences in change between groups. The The shortened, 9-item version of the General Multifaceted Automaticity Scale (Boiché, J., et al, 2016. Shortened by Marchant et al, 2021) will be used. This is a Likert scale where participants are asked to indicate on a scale of one (I do not agree at all) to five (I totally agree) how much they agree with nine statements. Scoring: Sum and divide by 9. Low scores = low automaticity. High scores = high automaticity.
Measured: 12-weeks
Reward responsiveness (RR)
RR will be measured at the start and end of the intervention period using the behavioural activation items from Gray's Behavioural Inhibition/Behaviour Activation scales(BIS/BAS) (Van den Berg et al, 2011. Carver C.S. 1994). Participants are asked to indicate the degree to which they agree (1) or disagree (4)with five statements using a Likert scale. RR will be assessed for changes over time by scoring the four items from the BAS in reverse i.e. a low score means highly reward responsive and a high score means low reward responsivness. Levels of RR will be explored as a predictors of levels of minutes of walking within and between groups.
Measured: 12-weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 May 2024
- Study start29 Apr 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completion29 Jul 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion29 Jul 2024 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Physical InactivityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University College, LondonThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Three group randomised trial with no control
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University College, London
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Hannah McCarthy, MA, Principal investigator, University College, London
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06395233
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 18-IHIREC
- Status last verified
- Apr 2024
- First submitted
- 24 Apr 2024
- Last updated
- 2 May 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No individual participant data will be available. Aggregated and anonymised data will be available upon reasonable request.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 May 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomised Trial of the Effectiveness of Lottery, Assured and Combined Incentives on App Tracked Walking Behaviour Over 12 Weeks.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06395233
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 18-IHIREC
- Conditions
- Physical Inactivity
- Keywords
- Incentives, Physical activity, Apps, Digital Health, Health behaviour
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University College, LondonUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 29 Apr 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 29 Jul 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 29 Jul 2024 (estimated)
- First posted
- 2 May 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed 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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Three group randomised trial with no control
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group one: Assured Incentives | Experimental | Device: BetterPoints AppGroup 1: Assured (Points only): Participants will be able to earn 10 points for each 10 minutes of walking. Every minute will count, the participant does not have to walk for 10 consecutive minutes to receive the points. Once a person has accumulated 10 minutes of walking exercise, their points will be awarded. This will be capped at 40 points per day, i.e. the participant can earn 10 BetterPoints up to four times a day by doing 40 minutes of walking. |
| Group 2: Non Assured Incentives | Experimental | Device: BetterPoints AppGroup 2: Non-Assured (Lottery tickets only): Participants will be able to earn one lottery ticket for each 10 minutes of walking. This is accrued and awarded in the same way as the points condition. It is capped at four tickets per day. |
| Group 3: Combined | Experimental | Device: BetterPoints AppGroup 3: Combined (Combined points/tickets): Participants in group 3 will be able to earn 5 points and one lottery ticket for 10 minutes of walking. The daily lottery in this condition will be for 500 BetterPoints (rather than 1000 BetterPoints in group 2) and therefore each ticket will have an expected value (EV) of 5 BetterPoints. Participants will be able to earn points and tickets in this way for up to 40 minutes of walking per day. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Existing users of the BetterPoints app. Not in sponsored programmes.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- BetterPoints app users who are under 18. BetterPoints app users who are enrolled in programmes sponsored by local authorities.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| BetterPoints AppThe BetterPoints app is a smartphone application that uses incentives and gamification to motivate physical activity. | Device | Group 2: Non Assured Incentives, Group 3: Combined, Group one: Assured Incentives |
Primary outcome
Change in weekly minutes of walking from baseline
Time frame: 12-weeks
Baseline minutes of walking behaviour will be compared to follow up time points for the three groups. Minutes of walking will be measured using a GPS app. Baseline will be the two weeks of walking before the start of the intervention period. Follow up dates will be at four, eight and twelve weeks after the start of the intervention period.
Differences between groups in number of weekly minutes of walking achieved
Time frame: 12-weeks
Weekly minutes of walking will be plotted and visually inspected for differences between groups. Statistical differences in mean and median levels of walking at four, eight and twelve weeks will be tested. Proportional differences between groups in those reaching 150 minutes per week will be explored.
2 secondary outcomes
Perceived motivation
Time frame: 12-weeks
Reward responsiveness (RR)
Time frame: 12-weeks
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 May 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No individual participant data will be available. Aggregated and anonymised data will be available upon reasonable request.
Related trials for Physical Inactivity
Active, not recruiting
Promoting Physical Activity in Older Hispanic/Latino(a) Adults
Sedentary Behavior, Physical Inactivity
Not yet recruiting
Individual Variability in Energy Compensation After a 12-Week Supervised Exercise Intervention
Physical Inactivity, Overweight
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Different Amounts of Plyometric Exercise Without Jumping in Physically Inactive Older Adults
Sedentary Behavior / Physical Inactivity, Aging
Active, not recruiting
E-Bike Commuting and Health in Overweight College Students
Obesity &Amp; Overweight, Sedentary Behaviors
Enrolling by invitation
Effects of a School-Based Physical Activity Intervention on 24-Hour Movement Behaviours and Motor Development in Preschool Children - Study Protocol
Physical Inactivity, Sedentariness
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Hannah McCarthy, MA principal investigator
University College, London
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing BetterPoints App in people with Physical Inactivity, run by University College, London.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 May 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Hannah McCarthy, MA (07487680514, hannah.mccarthy.16@ucl.ac.uk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in weekly minutes of walking from baseline (time frame: 12-weeks). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 May 2024.