Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Behavioral Economic Incentive Programs for Goal Achievement on Healthy Diet, Weight Control and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Healthy diet, weight control and physical activity to reduce obesity can be motivated by financial incentives (FI). Behavioral-economic approaches may improve the incentivization effectiveness. This study compares and ranks the effectiveness of standard and behavioral incentivization for healthy diet, weight control, and physical activity promotion.
Purpose: To investigate whether behavioral-economic insights improve incentivization effectiveness.
Methods: A systematic search of Medline and Scopus was performed from database inception to December 2020. Study characteristics, program designs, and risk ratio (RR) were extracted. A two-stage network meta-analysis pooled and ranked intervention effects.
Results: There were 35 eligible RCTs. For diet-weight control, standard FI, deposit contract (deposit), lottery-based incentive (lottery), and standard-FI + lottery increased goal achievement compared to no-FI but only deposit was statistically significant with pooled RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 1.21 (0.94, 1.56), 1.79 (1.04, 3.05), 1.45 (0.99, 2.13), and 1.73 (0.83, 3.63). For physical activity, standard-FI, deposit, and lottery significantly increased goal achievement compared to no-FI, with pooled RRs of 1.38 (1.13, 1.68), 1.63 (1.24, 2.14) and 1.43 (1.14, 1.80), respectively. In a follow-up period for physical activity, only deposit significantly increased goal achievement compared to no-FI, with pooled RRs of 1.39 (1.11, 1.73).
Conclusion: Deposit, followed by lottery, were best for motivating healthy diet, weight control and physical activity at program end. Post-intervention, deposit then standard-FI were best for motivating physical activity. Behavioral insights can improve incentivization effectiveness, although lottery-based approaches may offer only short-term benefit regarding physical activity. However, the imprecise intervention effects were major concerns.
(© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.)