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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fixed Versus Lottery Incentives for Promoting Engagement With a Cadence-Based Smartphone App: Randomized Crossover Trial.JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
- Unsupervised Frailty Intervention by Digitalized Exercise Coaching: A Feasibility Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.