Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35621321›Full record

ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing

A Pilot Study for Testing the Effectiveness and Cost-Efficiency of Lottery Incentive in mHealth App that Promotes Walking.

Changseok Lee, Kyong-Mee Chung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

2 authors.

Changseok LeeDepartment of Psychology, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Kyong-Mee ChungDepartment of Psychology, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1197-4156

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is a pilot study that investigated differences in effectiveness, maintenance of effectiveness, cost-efficiency, satisfaction, and usability of a lottery incentive via mobile devices to promote walking, depending on the chance of winning the lottery, the amount of the prize, and gender. Sixty-six college students (male = 26) were randomly assigned to 3 groups: 10% chance of a big prize (10% + B), 50% chance of a medium prize (50% + M), and 100% chance of a small prize (100% + S). Step counts were collected through mobile devices before and after the intervention, as well as at the 2-month follow-up. The results showed significant increases in the step counts among males after the intervention in the 10% + B and the 50% + M groups, and females in the 100% + S group. Only males in the 50% + M group exhibited maintenance in effectiveness during follow-up. With regard to cost-efficiency, the 10% + B and the 50% + M male groups, which showed significant differences in effectiveness, were compared, and no significant difference was found. With regard to intervention satisfaction, satisfaction of the 10% + B group was lower than that of the 100% + S group. There were no significant interactions or main effects regarding the usability of the intervention. The results suggest that a lottery incentive is effective only for men to promote walking when a medium size prize is given with a 50% of chance of winning the lottery.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineFemaleHumansMaleMotivationPilot ProjectsWalkinghealthcarelotterymHealthphysical activitywalking

Identifiers

PMID35621321
PMCPMC9150245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.