A loyalty scheme to encourage physical activity in office workers: a cluster RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Increasing physical activity in the workplace can provide physical and mental health benefits for employees and economic benefits for the employer through reduced absenteeism and increased productivity. However, there is limited evidence on effective behaviour change interventions in workplace settings that led to maintained physical activity. This study aimed to address this gap and contribute to the evidence base for effective and cost-effective workplace interventions. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Physical Activity Loyalty scheme, a multicomponent intervention based on concepts similar to those that underpin a high-street loyalty card, which was aimed at encouraging habitual physical activity behaviour and maintaining increases in mean number of steps per day. Design A cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded economic evaluation, behavioural economic experiments, mediation analyses and process evaluation. Setting Office-based employees from public sector organisations in Belfast and Lisburn city centres in Northern Ireland. Participants A total of 853 participants [mean age 43.6 years (standard deviation 9.6 years); 71% of participants were female] were randomly allocated by cluster to either the intervention group or the (waiting list) control group. Intervention The 6-month intervention consisted of financial incentives (retail vouchers), feedback and other evidence-based behaviour change techniques. Sensors situated in the vicinity of the workplaces allowed participants to monitor their accumulated minutes of physical activity. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was mean number of steps per day recorded using a sealed pedometer (Yamax Digiwalker CW-701; Yamax, Tasley, UK) worn on the waist for 7 consecutive days and at 6 and 12 months post intervention. Secondary outcomes included health, mental well-being, quality of life, work absenteeism and presenteeism, and the use of health-care resources. Results The mean number of steps per day were significantly lower for the intervention group than the control group [6990 mean number of steps per day (standard deviation 3078) vs. 7576 mean number of steps per day (standard deviation 3345), respectively], with an adjusted mean difference of –336 steps (95% confidence interval –612 to –60 steps; p = 0.02) at 6 months post baseline, but not significantly lower at 12 months post baseline. There was a small but significant enhancement of mental well-being in the intervention group (difference between groups for the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale of 1.34 points, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 2.20 points), but not for the other secondary outcomes. An economic evaluation suggested that, overall, the scheme was not cost-effective compared with no intervention. The intervention was £25.85 (95% confidence interval –£29.89 to £81.60) more costly per participant than no intervention and had no effect on quality-adjusted life-years (incremental quality-adjusted life-years –0.0000891, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.008). Limitations Significant restructuring of participating organisations during the study resulted in lower than anticipated recruitment and retention rates. Technical issues affected intervention fidelity. Conclusions Overall, assignment to the intervention group resulted in a small but significant decline in the mean pedometer-measured steps per day at 6 months relative to baseline, compared with the waiting list control group. The Physical Activity Loyalty scheme was deemed not to be cost-effective compared with no intervention, primarily because no additional quality-adjusted life-years were gained through the intervention. Research to better understand the mechanisms of physical activity behaviour change maintenance will help the design of future interventions. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17975376. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research ; Vol. 7, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".