Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30541563›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2018

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme for physical activity behaviour change maintenance: results from a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Ruth F Hunter, Jennifer M Murray, Aisling Gough, Jianjun Tang, Christopher C Patterson, David P French, Emma McIntosh, Yiqiao Xin, Frank Kee, Physical Activity Loyalty (PAL) Study team

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Economic Evaluations of Physical Exercise at Work: A Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors.

Ruth F HunterUKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research (NI)/Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, Northern Ireland. ruth.hunter@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7315-0382
Jennifer M MurrayUKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research (NI)/Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, Northern Ireland.
Aisling GoughUKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research (NI)/Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, Northern Ireland.
Jianjun TangUKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research (NI)/Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, Northern Ireland.
Christopher C PattersonUKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research (NI)/Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, Northern Ireland.
David P FrenchSchool of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
Emma McIntoshHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Yiqiao XinHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Frank KeeUKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research (NI)/Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, Northern Ireland.
Physical Activity Loyalty (PAL) Study team

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKDepartment of Health PHR/12/211/82Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a loyalty scheme based intervention involving rewards for increasing physical activity in public sector employees.

methodsA cluster randomised wait-list controlled trial in public sector organisations in Northern Ireland. We randomly assigned clusters (1:1) using a computer generated random sequence. Researchers were masked to allocation, but participants were not. Employees aged 18-65 years with no self-reported medical contraindications to physical activity were included. The Physical Activity Loyalty Scheme (PAL) intervention was based on high-street loyalty cards where participants earned points for minutes of activity that could be redeemed for rewards, complemented by evidence-based behaviour change techniques. The primary outcome was objectively measured mean steps/day at 6 months using a validated pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW-701) over 7 days, assessed with intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included health, mental wellbeing, quality of life, work absenteeism and presenteeism, and use of healthcare resources. Cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and mediation analyses were conducted. Trial registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN17975376.

resultsBetween September 2014 and October 2015, we recruited and randomly assigned 37 clusters (from nine organisations; mean clusters per organisation = four) and 853 participants to the intervention (n = 19 with 457 participants) or control group (n = 18 with 396 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 249 (54·4%) intervention and 236 (59·6%) control participants. Mean steps/day were significantly lower in the intervention vs control group (adjusted mean difference = - 336, 95% CI: -612 to - 60, p = 0·02) at 6 months. Participants redeemed only 39% (SD 43%) of their earned points. Using the Quality Adjusted Life Year outcome, the intervention was not cost effective from an NHS/PSS perspective. A net cost analysis from an employer perspective demonstrated the intervention group was associated with a mean of 2·97 h less absenteeism over a 4 week period (p = 0·62), which could result in net savings ranging from £66 to £735 depending on the wage rate employed. At 4-weeks post-baseline there were significant increases in identified regulation, integrated regulation, intrinsic motivation, social norms and intentions in intervention compared to control participants.

conclusionsOur mixed results pose challenges that are too infrequently exposed in public heath intervention trials. Although the intervention successfully altered several hypothesised mediating constructs it did not translate into long-term behaviour change. Our incentive level may have been too low to incentivise change, despite being designed a priori by a Contingent Valuation Survey. There were also major re-structuring of several organisations which presented significant implementation challenges, and technical limitations.

trial registrationISRCTN17975376 (Registered 19/09/2014).

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisExerciseHealth BehaviorAdolescentAdultAgedCluster AnalysisEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGovernment EmployeesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic SectorQuality of LifeSocioeconomic FactorsAdultsBehaviour changeCost-effectivenessEffectivenessIncentivesInterventionPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID30541563
PMCPMC6291971

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.