Incentives and rewards: what do adult populations truly want? Insights from the physical activity loyalty (PAL) scheme

Background
Trials depend on good recruitment and retention, but efforts to improve these have had varying success. This may be due to inadequate understanding of what participants would value in return for taking part. An opportunity arose in one trial to investigate the incentives that might help recruit and retain participants to another.

Aim
To determine what adults value as an incentive for involvement in a trial.

Methods
In the PAL Scheme, employees used a ‘loyalty card’ to monitor their physical activity over 12 weeks. The incentive group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for physical activity (1 minute = 1 point, max: 30 pts/day). A comparator group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Points could be redeemed as retail vouchers. 17 different incentives were available, from 75 pts (£2.50, a sandwich) to 1800 pts (£60, 1 month gym membership).

Results
148 of the 199 intervention participants used their card at least once, earning a mean of 374 pts. 121 earned sufficient to collect a reward and 76 redeemed points for vouchers but only 48 exchanged the vouchers for rewards. The most popular reward was not that of highest monetary value: two cinema tickets (300 pts, £10).

Conclusions
The value that participants place on a reward might be more important than its monetary value. Some might appreciate receiving the voucher, without spending it. In choosing incentives to boost trial participation, it may help to allow people to choose from a variety of rewards, rather than reimbursing in money.

Evaluation of the antidiabetic activity of DPP IV resistant N-terminally modified versus mid-chain acylated analogues of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide

Glucose dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is a gastrointestinal hormone with therapeutic potential for type 2 diabetes due to its insulin-releasing and antihyperglycaemic actions. However, development of GIP-based therapies is limited by N-terminal degradation by DPP IV resulting in a very short circulating half-life. Numerous GIP analogues have now been generated exhibiting DPP IV resistance and extended bioactivity profiles. In this study, we report a direct comparison of the long-term antidiabetic actions of three such GIP molecules, N-AcGIP, GIP(LyS(37)PAL) and N-AcGIP(LyS(37)PAL) in obese diabetic (ob/ob) mice. An extended duration of action of each GIP analogue was demonstrated prior to examining the effects of once daily injections (25 nmol kg(-1) body weight) over a 14-day period. Administration of either N-AcGIP, GIP(LyS(37)PAL) or N-AcGIP(LyS37PAL) significantly decreased non-fasting plasma glucose and improved glucose tolerance compared to saline treated controls. All three analogues significantly enhanced glucose and nutrient-induced insulin release, and improved insulin sensitivity. The metabolic and insulin secretory responses to native GIP were also enhanced in 14-day analogue treated mice, revealing no evidence of GIP-receptor desensitization. These effects were accompanied by significantly enhanced pancreatic insulin following N-AcGIP(Lys(37)PAL) and increased islet number and islet size in all three groups. Body weight, food intake and circulating glucagon were unchanged. These data demonstrate the therapeutic potential of once daily injection of enzyme resistant GIP analogues and indicate that N-AcGIP is equally as effective as related palmitate derivatised analogues of GIP. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.