Exploring the use of physical activity loyalty cards for behaviour change in public health: randomised controlled trial

Abstract
Background Physical inactivity is a major public health concern, and more innovative approaches are urgently needed to address it. The UK Government supports the use of incentives and so-called nudges to encourage healthy behaviour changes, and has encouraged business sector involvement in public health through the Public Health Responsibility Deal. To test the effectiveness of provision of incentives to encourage adults to increase their physical activity, we
recruited 406 adults from a workplace setting (office-based) to take part in an assessor-blind randomised controlled trial.
Methods
We developed the physical activity loyalty card scheme, which integrates a novel physical activity tracking system with web-based monitoring (palcard). Participants were recruited from two buildings at Northern Ireland’s main
government offices and were randomly allocated (grouped by building [n=2] to reduce contamination) to either incentive group (n=199) or no incentive group (n=207). We included participants aged 16–65 years, based at the worksite 4 days or more per week and for 6 h or more per day, and able to complete 15 min of moderate-paced walking (self-report). Exclusion criteria included having received specific advice by a general practitioner not to exercise. A statistician not involved in administration of the trial prepared a computer-generated random allocation sequence. Random assignments were placed in individually numbered, sealed envelopes by the statistician to ensure concealment of allocation. Only the assessor was masked to assignment. Sensors were placed along footpaths and the gym in the workplace. Participants scanned their loyalty card at the sensor when undertaking physical activity (eg, walking), which logged activity. Participants in the incentive group monitored their physical activity, collected points, and received rewards (retail vouchers) for minutes of physical activity completed over the 12-week intervention. Rewards were vouchers sponsored by local retailers. Participants in the no incentive group used their loyalty card to self-monitor their physical activity but were not able to earn points or receive rewards. The primary outcome was change in minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity with the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire, measured at baseline, week 12, and 6 months. Activity was objectively measured with the tracking system over the 12-week intervention. Mann Whitney U tests were done to assess change between groups.
Findings
The mean age of participants was 43·32 years (SD 9·37), and 272 (67%) were women. We obtained follow-up data from 353 (87%) participants at week 12 and 341 (84%) at 6 months. At week 12, participants in the incentive group increased moderate to vigorous physical activity by a median of 60 min per week (IQR –10 to 120) compared with 30 min per week (–60 to 90) in the no incentive group (p=0·05). At 6 months, participants in the incentive group had
increased their moderate to vigorous physical activity by 30 min per week (–60 to 100) from baseline compared with 0 min per week (–115 to 1110) in the no incentive group (p=0·099). We noted no significant differences between groups
for use of loyalty card (p=0·18). Participants in the incentive group recorded a mean of 60·22 min (95% CI 50·90–69·55) of physical activity per week with their loyalty card on week 1 and 23·56 min (17·06–30·06) at week 12, which was similar to that for those in the no incentive group (59·74 min, 51·24–68·23, at week 1; 20·25 min, 14·45–26·06, at week 12; p=0·94 for differences between groups at week 1; p=0·45 for differences between groups at week 12).
Interpretation:
Financial incentives showed a short-term behaviour change in physical activity. This innovative study contributes to the necessary evidence base, and has important implications for physical activity promotion and business engagement in health. The optimum incentive-based approach needs to be established. Results should be interpreted with some caution as the analyses of secondary outcomes were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.

Social class, unemployment, and psychological distress

Attempts to explain variation in rates of psychological distress by social class have included reference to social selection, differential exposure to stress, and differential vulnerability arising from inequalities in access to resources. Our analysis draws on data from a national survey of the Republic of Ireland in order to examine these hypotheses. No evidence to support the social selection hypothesis was found. In addressing the issue of differential responsiveness, attention was focused on the interaction between unemployment and social class in their impact on psychological distress. While rather weak support for the hypothesis of differential vulnerability was found among women, our examination of the impact of husband's unemployment provided no evidence leading in this direction. Among men unemployment actually had a stronger impact for men in higher social classes. The major factors leading to social class differences in psychological distress are greater exposure to unemployment and economic deprivation. © 1994 Oxford University Press.

Steps to a better Belfast: physical activity assessment and promotion in primary care

BACKGROUND: Low physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by two-thirds of the general UK population. Promotion of PA by primary healthcare professionals is advocated but more evidence is needed regarding effective ways of integrating this within everyday practice. This study aims to explore the feasibility of a randomised trial of a pedometer-based intervention, using step-count goals, recruiting patients from primary care. METHOD: Patients, aged 35-75, attending four practices in socioeconomically deprived areas, were invited to complete a General Practice PA Questionnaire during routine consultations. Health professionals invited 'inactive' individuals to a pedometer-based intervention and were randomly allocated to group 1 (prescribed a self-determined goal) or group 2 (prescribed a specific goal of 2500 steps/day above baseline). Both groups kept step-count diaries and received telephone follow-up at 1, 2, 6 and 11 weeks. Step counts were reassessed after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 2154 patients attending, 192 questionnaires were completed (8.9%). Of these, 83 were classified as 'inactive'; 41(10 men; 31 women) completed baseline assessments, with the mean age of participants being 51 years. Mean baseline step counts were similar in group 1 (5685, SD 2945) and group 2 (6513, SD 3350). The mean increase in steps/day was greater in groups 1 than 2 ((2602, SD 1957) vs (748, SD 1997) p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A trial of a pedometer-based intervention using self-determined step counts appears feasible in primary care. Pedometers appear acceptable to women, particularly at a perimenopausal age, when it is important to engage in impact loading activities such as walking to maintain bone mineral density. An increase of 2500 steps/day is achievable for inactive patients, but the effectiveness of different approaches to realistic goal-setting warrants further study.

A randomised control trial of experiential learning to promote physical activity

The paucity of training in physical activity (PA) promotion in UK medical schools is a barrier to health professionals' promotion of PA to their patients. Doctors who are more physically active are more likely to counsel patients in this regard. We used a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effect of an intervention which engaged students in goal-setting, using pedometer step counts, on their PA behaviour and intentions to promote PA in future practice.

A lesson in business: cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel financial incentive intervention for increasing physical activity in the workplace

Background: Recently both the UK and US governments have advocated the use of financial incentives to encourage healthier lifestyle choices but evidence for the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is lacking. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a quasi-experimental trial, exploring the use of financial incentives to increase employee physical activity levels, from a healthcare and employer’s perspective.

Methods: Employees used a ‘loyalty card’ to objectively monitor their physical activity at work over 12 weeks. The Incentive Group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for minutes of physical activity completed. The No Incentive Group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Quality of life (QOL) and absenteeism were assessed at baseline and 6 months follow-up. QOL scores were also converted into productivity estimates using a validated algorithm. The additional costs of the Incentive Group were divided by the additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or productivity gained to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was used to characterize and value the uncertainty in our estimates.

Results: The Incentive Group performed more physical activity over 12 weeks and by 6 months had achieved greater gains in QOL and productivity, although these mean differences were not statistically significant. The ICERs were £2,900/QALY and £2,700 per percentage increase in overall employee productivity. Whilst the confidence intervals surrounding these ICERs were wide, CEACs showed a high chance of the intervention being cost-effective at low willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.

Conclusions: The Physical Activity Loyalty card (PAL) scheme is potentially cost-effective from both a healthcare and employer’s perspective but further research is warranted to reduce uncertainty in our results. It is based on a sustainable “business model” which should become more cost-effective as it is delivered to more participants and can be adapted to suit other health behaviors and settings. This comes at a time when both UK and US governments are encouraging business involvement in tackling public health challenges.

Using Pedometer Step-Count Goals to Promote Physical Activity in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Feasibility Study of a Controlled Trial

Background: There is a need to improve the effectiveness of strategies to help cardiac rehabilitation patients achieve recommended levels of physical activity; the use of pedometers requires further research. We aimed to examine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial, of an intervention using pedometer step-count goals, to promote physical activity for cardiac rehabilitation patients. Methods: We invited patients who completed a supervised cardiac rehabilitation programme to participate in this community-based study. Consenting participants wore a Yamax CW-701 pedometer for one week, blinded to stepcount readings, before being randomly allocated to groups. Intervention groups were told their step-counts; working with a clinical facilitator (nurse or physiotherapist) individually, they set daily step-count goals and reviewed these weekly. Baseline step-counts were hidden from controls, who were not given pedometers but received ongoing weekly facilitator support. After six weeks both groups wore ‘blinded’ pedometers for outcome assessment and participated in semi-structured interviews which explored their experiences of the study. Outcomes included rates of uptake, adherence and completion of measures, including step-counts, quality of life (EQ-5D) and stage of behaviour change. Results: Four programme groups were recruited; two received the intervention. Of 68 invitees, 45 participated (66%) (19 intervention; 26 control). Forty-two (93%) completed the outcomes. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Mean steps/day increased more for intervention participants (2,742; 95%CI 1,169 to 4,315) than controls (-42; 95%CI -1,102 to 1,017) (p=0.004). The intervention and on-going clinical contact were welcomed; participants considered that step-counts, compared to time-related targets, encouraged them to become more active. Conclusion: These findings suggest that an intervention using individually tailored step-count goals may help increase and sustain physical activity following a cardiac rehabilitation programme. A definitive randomised controlled trial using blinded outcome measurements is feasible and of potential value in determining how best to translate physical activity advice into practice.

Physical activity assessment in practice: a mixed methods study of GPPAQ use in primary care

Background: Insufficient physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by almost two-thirds of the population. More evidence is needed about how PA promotion can be effectively implemented in general practice (GP), particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. One tool recommended for the assessment of PA in GP and supported by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) but details of how it may be used and of its acceptability to practitioners and patients are limited. This study aims to examine aspects of GPPAQ administration in non-urgent patient contacts using different primary care electronic recording systems and to explore the views of health professionals regarding its use.

Methods: Four general practices, selected because of their location within socio-economically disadvantaged areas, were invited to administer GPPAQs to patients, aged 35-75 years, attending non-urgent consultations, over two-week periods. They used different methods of administration and different electronic medical record systems (EMIS, Premiere, Vision). Participants’ (general practitioners (GPs), nurses and receptionists) views regarding GPPAQ use were explored via questionnaires and focus groups.

Results: Of 2,154 eligible consultations, 192 (8.9%) completed GPPAQs; of these 83 (43%) were categorised as inactive. All practices were located within areas ranked as being in the tertile of greatest socio-economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. GPs/nurses in two practices invited completion of the GPPAQ, receptionists did so in two. One practice used an electronic template; three used paper copies of the questionnaires. End-of-study questionnaires, completed by 11 GPs, 3 nurses and 2 receptionists and two focus groups, with GPs (n = 8) and nurses (n = 4) indicated that practitioners considered the GPPAQ easy to use but not in every consultation. Its use extended consultation time, particularly for patients with complex problems who could potentially benefit from PA promotion.

Conclusions: GPs and nurses reported that the GPPAQ itself was an easy tool with which to assess PA levels in general practice and feasible to use in a range of electronic record systems but integration within routine practice is constrained by time and complex consultations. Further exploration of ways to facilitate PA promotion into practice is needed.