Investigating rewards and deposit contract financial incentives for physical activity behavior change using a smartphone app: randomized controlled trial

Health and self-regulatio

Financial incentives for healthy living for patients with cardiac disease from the perspective of health care professionals: interview study

Health and self-regulatio

Cardiovascular disease patients’ views on using financial incentives for health behavior change: Are deposit contracts acceptable?

Background: There is an urgent need to find new approaches that improve long-term adherence to a healthy lifestyle for people with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Deposit contracts (a financial incentive in which the participant deposits own money) are inexpensive and effective, but acceptability among CVD patients is unclear. This study investigated the acceptability of a deposit contract intervention for physical activity among CVD patients. Methods: We approached CVD patients through the Harteraad patient panel of the Dutch CVD patient organization and asked them to fill in an online survey. In total (N = 659) CVD patients with a mean age of 66.2 years completed the survey. The survey assessed acceptability of deposit contracts, responses to a concrete example of a deposit contract for physical activity behavior change, and suitable moments for implementation. Results: Overall, half of the participants (45.6%) confirmed needing extra commitment to maintain lifestyle change. Yet, a small part of the sample was convinced by the idea that losing money could be motivating (18.8%) and indicated that they would be willing to deposit money themselves (13.2%). Responding to a concrete example of a deposit contract for physical activity, a quarter of the sample (26.2%) reported there was a chance they would participate. Furthermore, 27.1% of the participants found the deposit contract effective and 27.4% found it acceptable. Exploratory analyses showed that a subgroup of younger and lower educated participants responded more favorably. Opinions on when to start with a deposit contract were mixed. Conclusions: Because acceptability was generally found to be low, future research should also investigate strategies to leverage commitment principles for CVD patients without a cash deposit requirement. When deposit contracts are offered to CVD patients in practice, we recommend offering them as an optional, additional element to existing interventions that patients can opt-in to

The Barriers and Facilitators of eHealth-Based Lifestyle Intervention Programs for People With a Low Socioeconomic Status: Scoping Review

Background: Promoting health behaviors and preventing chronic diseases through a healthy lifestyle among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES) remain major challenges. eHealth interventions are a promising approach to change unhealthy behaviors in this target group.Objective: This review aims to identify key components, barriers, and facilitators in the development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES. This review provides an overview for researchers and eHealth developers, and can assist in the development of eHealth interventions for people with a low SES.Methods: We performed a scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, using terms related to a combination of the following key constructs: eHealth, lifestyle, low SES, development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation. There were no restrictions on the date of publication for articles retrieved upon searching the databases.Results: The search identified 1323 studies, of which 42 met our inclusion criteria. An update of the search led to the inclusion of 17 additional studies. eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES were often delivered via internet-based methods (eg, websites, email, Facebook, and smartphone apps) and offline methods, such as texting. A minority of the interventions combined eHealth lifestyle interventions with face-to-face or telephone coaching, or wearables (blended care). We identified the use of different behavioral components (eg, social support) and technological components (eg, multimedia) in eHealth lifestyle interventions. Facilitators in the development included iterative design, working with different disciplines, and resonating intervention content with users. Facilitators for intervention reach were use of a personal approach and social network, reminders, and self-monitoring. Nevertheless, barriers, such as technological challenges for developers and limited financial resources, may hinder intervention development. Furthermore, passive recruitment was a barrier to intervention reach. Technical difficulties and the use of self-monitoring devices were common barriers for users of eHealth interventions. Only limited data on barriers and facilitators for intervention implementation and evaluation were available.Conclusions: While we found large variations among studies regarding key intervention components, and barriers and facilitators, certain factors may be beneficial in building and using eHealth interventions and reaching people with a low SES. Barriers and facilitators offer promising elements that eHealth developers can use as a toolbox to connect eHealth with low SES individuals. Our findings suggest that one-size-fits-all eHealth interventions may be less suitable for people with a low SES. Future research should investigate how to customize eHealth lifestyle interventions to meet the needs of different low SES groups, and should identify the components that enhance their reach, use, and effectiveness.Prevention, Population and Disease management (PrePoD)Public Health and primary car

Lifestyle support preferences of patients with cardiovascular diseases: what lifestyle support might work best for whom?

Health and self-regulatio