Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30148712›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Evaluating the Carrot Rewards App, a Population-Level Incentive-Based Intervention Promoting Step Counts Across Two Canadian Provinces: Quasi-Experimental Study.

Marc Mitchell, Lauren White, Erica Lau, Tricia Leahey, Marc A Adams, Guy Faulkner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Daily Step Counts from the First Thailand National Steps Challenge in 2020: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Marc MitchellWestern University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-9614
Lauren WhiteCarrot Insights Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9935-3732
Erica LauUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4156-6038
Tricia LeaheyUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8134-3838
Marc A AdamsArizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6310-1472
Guy FaulknerUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8898-2536
University of British Columbia · CAArizona State University · USUniversity of Connecticut · USWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Carrot Rewards app was developed as part of an innovative public-private partnership to reward Canadians with loyalty points, exchangeable for retail goods, travel rewards, and groceries for engaging in healthy behaviors such as walking.

objectiveThis study examined whether a multicomponent intervention including goal setting, graded tasks, biofeedback, and very small incentives tied to daily step goal achievement (assessed by built-in smartphone accelerometers) could increase physical activity in two Canadian provinces, British Columbia (BC) and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

methodsThis 12-week, quasi-experimental (single group pre-post) study included 78,882 participants; 44.39% (35,014/78,882) enrolled in the Carrot Rewards "Steps" walking program during the recruitment period (June 13-July 10, 2016). During the 2-week baseline (or "run-in") period, we calculated participants' mean steps per day. Thereafter, participants earned incentives in the form of loyalty points (worth Can $0.04 ) every day they reached their personalized daily step goal (ie, baseline mean+1000 steps=first daily step goal level). Participants earned additional points (Can $0.40) for meeting their step goal 10+ nonconsecutive times in a 14-day period (called a "Step Up Challenge"). Participants could earn up to Can $5.00 during the 12-week evaluation period. Upon meeting the 10-day contingency, participants could increase their daily goal by 500 steps, aiming to gradually increase the daily step number by 3000. Only participants with ≥5 valid days (days with step counts: 1000-40,000) during the baseline period were included in the analysis (n=32,229).The primary study outcome was mean steps per day (by week), analyzed using linear mixed-effects models.

resultsThe mean age of 32,229 participants with valid baseline data was 33.7 (SD 11.6) years; 66.11% (21,306/32,229) were female. The mean daily step count at baseline was 6511.22. Over half of users (16,336/32,229, 50.69%) were categorized as "physically inactive," accumulating <5000 daily steps at baseline. Results from mixed-effects models revealed statistically significant increases in mean daily step counts when comparing baseline with each study week (P<.001). Compared with baseline, participants walked 115.70 more steps (95% CI 74.59 to 156.81; P<.001) at study week 12. BC and NL users classified as "high engagers" (app engagement above sample median; 15,511/32,229, 48.13%) walked 738.70 (95% CI 673.81 to 803.54; P<.001) and 346.00 (95% CI 239.26 to 452.74; P<.001) more steps, respectively. Physically inactive, high engagers (7022/32,229, 21.08%) averaged an increase of 1224.66 steps per day (95% CI 1160.69 to 1288.63; P<.001). Effect sizes were modest.

conclusionsProviding very small but immediate rewards for personalized daily step goal achievement as part of a multicomponent intervention increased daily step counts on a population scale, especially for physically inactive individuals and individuals who engaged more with the walking program. Positive effects in both BC and NL provide evidence of replicability.

Indexed as

behavioral economicsfinancial health incentivesmHealthmobile phonephysical activitypublic health

Identifiers

PMID30148712
PMCPMC6231836
OpenAlexW2810797565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.