Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25274710›Full record

Trial reportHealth education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education2014

A mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of financial incentives and peer networks to promote walking among older adults.

Jeffrey T Kullgren, Kristin A Harkins, Scarlett L Bellamy, Amy Gonzales, Yuanyuan Tao, Jingsan Zhu, Kevin G Volpp, David A Asch, Michele Heisler, Jason Karlawish

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2017
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey T KullgrenVA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA jkullgre@med.umich.edu.
Kristin A HarkinsUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Scarlett L BellamyUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA Penn CMU Roybal P30 Center on Behavioral Economics and Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Amy GonzalesIndiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Yuanyuan TaoUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA Penn CMU Roybal P30 Center on Behavioral Economics and Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jingsan ZhuUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA Penn CMU Roybal P30 Center on Behavioral Economics and Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kevin G VolppUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA Penn CMU Roybal P30 Center on Behavioral Economics and Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David A AschUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA Penn CMU Roybal P30 Center on Behavioral Economics and Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michele HeislerVA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jason KarlawishUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Philadelphia, PA, USA Penn CMU Roybal P30 Center on Behavioral Economics and Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USIndiana University Bloomington · USPenn Center for AIDS Research · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USVA Ann Arbor Healthcare System · USVeterans Health Administration · US

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Developing Interactive Technologies to Improve Research and Health BehaviorRC2AG036592 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ASCH, DAVID A, VOLPP, KEVIN G · 2009 to 2010
$5.4M
CCR NIH HHS RC2103282621NIA NIH HHS RC2 AG036592NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFinancial incentives and peer networks could be delivered through eHealth technologies to encourage older adults to walk more.

methodsWe conducted a 24-week randomized trial in which 92 older adults with a computer and Internet access received a pedometer, daily walking goals, and weekly feedback on goal achievement. Participants were randomized to weekly feedback only (Comparison), entry into a lottery with potential to earn up to $200 each week walking goals were met (Financial Incentive), linkage to four other participants through an online message board (Peer Network), or both interventions (Combined). Main outcomes were the proportion of days walking goals were met during the 16-week intervention and 8-week follow-up. We conducted a content analysis of messages posted by Peer Network and Combined arm participants.

resultsDuring the 16-week intervention, there were no differences in the proportion of days walking goals were met in the Financial Incentive (39.7%; p = .78), Peer Network (24.9%; p = .08), and Combined (36.0%; p = .77) arms compared with the Comparison arm (36.0%). During 8 weeks of follow-up, the proportion of days walking goals were met was lower in the Peer Network arm (18.7%; p = .025) but not in the Financial Incentive (29.3%; p = .50) or Combined (24.8%; p = .37) arms, relative to the Comparison arm (34.5%). Messages posted by participants focused on barriers to walking and provision of social support.

conclusionsFinancial incentives and peer networks delivered through eHealth technologies did not result in older adults walking more.

Indexed as

Health PromotionMotivationPeer GroupWalkingAgedFemaleHumansMaleRewardbehavioral economicseHealthfinancial incentivesolder adultswalking

Identifiers

PMID25274710
PMCPMC4382353
OpenAlexW1964148584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.