BackgroundGamification and deposit contracts (a financial incentive in which participants pledge their own money) can enhance effectiveness of mobile behavior change interventions. However, to... Show moreBackgroundGamification and deposit contracts (a financial incentive in which participants pledge their own money) can enhance effectiveness of mobile behavior change interventions. However, to assess their potential for improving population health, research should investigate implementation of gamified deposit contracts outside the research setting. Therefore, we analyzed data from StepBet, a smartphone application originally developed by WayBetter, Inc.ObjectiveTo perform a naturalistic evaluation of StepBet gamified deposit contracts, for whom they work best, and under which conditions they are most effective to help increase physical activity.MethodsWayBetter provided data of StepBet participants that participated in a stepcount challenge between 2015 and 2020 (N = 72,974). StepBet challenges were offered on the StepBet smartphone application. The modal challenge consisted of a $40 deposit made prior to a 6-week challenge period during which participants needed to reach daily and weekly step goals in order to regain their deposit. Participants who met their goals also received additional earnings which were paid out from the money lost by those who failed their challenge. Challenge step goals were tailored on a 90-day historic step count retrieval that was also used as the baseline comparison for this study. Primary outcomes were increase in step count (continuous) and challenge success (dichotomous).ResultsOverall, average daily step counts increased by 31.2 % (2423 steps, SD = 3462) from 7774 steps (SD = 3112) at baseline to 10,197 steps (SD = 4162) during the challenge. The average challenge success rate was 73 %. Those who succeeded in their challenge (n = 53,281) increased their step count by 44.0 % (3465 steps, SD = 3013), while those who failed their challenge (n = 19,693) decreased their step count by −5.3 % (−398 steps, SD = 3013). Challenges started as a New Year's resolution were slightly more successful (77.7 %) than those started during the rest of the year (72.6 %).DiscussionIn a real-world setting, and among a large and diverse sample, participating in a gamified deposit contract challenge was associated with a large increase in step counts. A majority of challenges were successful and succeeding in a challenge was associated with a large and clinically relevant increase in step counts. Based on these findings, we recommend implementing gamified deposit contracts for physical activity where possible. An interesting avenue for future research is to explore possible setback effects among people who fail a challenge, and how setbacks can be mitigated. Show less
IMPORTANCE Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has been found to be a safe and beneficial alternative to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and might be associated with higher... Show moreIMPORTANCE Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has been found to be a safe and beneficial alternative to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and might be associated with higher participation rates by reducing barriers to CR use. However, implementation of CTR interventions remains low, which may be owing to a lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of data from large-scale randomized clinical trials.OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of CTR with relapse prevention compared with centerbased CR among patients with coronary artery disease.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This economic evaluation performed a cost-utility analysis of data from the SmartCare-CAD (Effects of Cardiac Telerehabilitation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Using a Personalized Patient-Centred ICT Platform) randomized clinical trial. The costeffectiveness and utility of 3 months of cardiac telerehabilitation followed by 9 months of relapse prevention were compared with the cost-effectiveness of traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation. The analysis included 300 patients with stable coronary artery disease who received care at a CR center serving 2 general hospitals in the Netherlands between May 23, 2016, and July 26, 2018. All patients were entering phase 2 of outpatient CR and were followed up for 1 year (until August 14, 2019). Data were analyzed from September 21, 2020, to September 24, 2021.INTERVENTION After baseline measurements were obtained, participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to receive CTR (intervention group) or center-based CR (control group) using computerized block randomization. After 6 supervised center-based training sessions, patients in the intervention group continued training at home using a heart rate monitor and accelerometer. Patients uploaded heart rate and physical activity data and discussed their progress during a weekly video consultation with their physical therapist. After 3 months, weekly coaching was concluded, and on-demand coaching was initiated for relapse prevention; patients were instructed to continue using their wearable sensors and were contacted in cases of nonadherence to the intervention or reduced exercise or physical activity volumes.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Quality-adjusted life-years were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey (EQ-5D-5L) and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and cardiac-associated health care costs and non-health care costs were measured by health care consumption, productivity, and informal care questionnaires (the Medical Consumption Questionnaire, the Productivity Cost Questionnaire, and the Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire) designed by the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment. Costs were converted to 2020 price levels (in euros) using the Dutch consumer price index (to convert to US dollars, euro values were multiplied by 1.142, which was the mean exchange rate in 2020).RESULTS Among 300 patients (266 men [88.7%]), the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (9.5) years. The quality of life among patients receiving CTR vs center-based CR was comparable during the study according to the results of both utility measures (mean difference on EQ-5D-5L: -0.004; P =.82; mean difference on EQ-VAS: -0.001; P =.92). Intervention costs were significantly higher for CTR (mean [SE], (sic)224 [(sic)4] [$256 ($4)]) compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], (sic)156 [(sic)5] [$178 ($6)]; P <.001); however, no difference in overall cardiac health care costs was observed between CTR (mean [SE], (sic)4787 [(sic)503] [$5467 ($574)] and center-based CR (mean [SE], (sic)5507 [(sic)659] [$6289 ($753)]; P =.36). From a societal perspective, CTR was associated with lower costs compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], (sic)20 495 [(sic)2751] [$23 405 ($3142)] vs (sic)24 381 [(sic)3613] [$27 843 ($4126)], respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (-(sic)3887 [-$ 4439]; P =.34).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this economic evaluation, a CTR intervention with relapse prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared with center-based CR, suggesting that CTR maybe used as an alternative intervention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. These results add to the evidence base in favor of CTR and may increase the implementation of CTR interventions in clinical practice. Show less
