↓ Skip to main content

Individual Versus Team-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
Title
Individual Versus Team-Based Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3627-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mitesh S. Patel, David A. Asch, Roy Rosin, Dylan S. Small, Scarlett L. Bellamy, Kimberly Eberbach, Karen J. Walters, Nancy Haff, Samantha M. Lee, Lisa Wesby, Karen Hoffer, David Shuttleworth, Devon H. Taylor, Victoria Hilbert, Jingsan Zhu, Lin Yang, Xingmei Wang, Kevin G. Volpp

Abstract

More than half of adults in the United States do not attain the minimum recommended level of physical activity to achieve health benefits. The optimal design of financial incentives to promote physical activity is unknown. To compare the effectiveness of individual versus team-based financial incentives to increase physical activity. Randomized, controlled trial comparing three interventions to control. Three hundred and four adult employees from an organization in Philadelphia formed 76 four-member teams. All participants received daily feedback on performance towards achieving a daily 7000 step goal during the intervention (weeks 1- 13) and follow-up (weeks 14- 26) periods. The control arm received no other intervention. In the three financial incentive arms, drawings were held in which one team was selected as the winner every other day during the 13-week intervention. A participant on a winning team was eligible as follows: $50 if he or she met the goal (individual incentive), $50 only if all four team members met the goal (team incentive), or $20 if he or she met the goal individually and $10 more for each of three teammates that also met the goal (combined incentive). Mean proportion of participant-days achieving the 7000 step goal during the intervention. Compared to the control group during the intervention period, the mean proportion achieving the 7000 step goal was significantly greater for the combined incentive (0.35 vs. 0.18, difference: 0.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-0.28, p <0.001) but not for the individual incentive (0.25 vs 0.18, difference: 0.08, 95 % CI: -0.02-0.18, p = 0.13) or the team incentive (0.17 vs 0.18, difference: -0.003, 95 % CI: -0.11-0.10, p = 0.96). The combined incentive arm participants also achieved the goal at significantly greater rates than the team incentive (0.35 vs. 0.17, difference: 0.18, 95 % CI: 0.08-0.28, p < 0.001), but not the individual incentive (0.35 vs. 0.25, difference: 0.10, 95 % CI: -0.001-0.19, p = 0.05). Only the combined incentive had greater mean daily steps than control (difference: 1446, 95 % CI: 448-2444, p ≤ 0.005). There were no significant differences between arms during the follow-up period (weeks 14- 26). Financial incentives rewarded for a combination of individual and team performance were most effective for increasing physical activity. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02001194.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 215 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 18%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Other 14 6%
Researcher 14 6%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 62 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 11%
Psychology 24 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Social Sciences 18 8%
Sports and Recreations 15 7%
Other 44 20%
Unknown 69 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2023.
All research outputs
#435,855
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#342
of 8,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,900
of 314,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#7
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.