BACKGROUND: eHealth interventions have the potential to increase the physical activity of users. However, their effectiveness varies, and they often have only short-term effects. A possible way of enhancing their effectiveness is to increase the positive outcome expectations of users by giving them positive suggestions regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. It has been shown that when individuals have positive expectations regarding various types of interventions, they tend to benefit from these interventions more. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this web-based study is to investigate whether positive suggestions can change the expectations of participants regarding the effectiveness of a smartphone physical activity intervention and subsequently enhance the number of steps the participants take during the intervention. In addition, we study whether suggestions affect perceived app effectiveness, engagement with the app, self-reported vitality, and fatigue of the participants. METHODS: This study involved a 21-day fully automated physical activity intervention aimed at helping participants to walk more steps. The intervention was delivered via a smartphone-based app that delivered specific tasks to participants (eg, setting activity goals or looking for social support) and recorded their daily step count. Participants were randomized to either a positive suggestions group (69/133, 51.9%) or a control group (64/133, 48.1%). Positive suggestions emphasizing the effectiveness of the intervention were implemented in a web-based flyer sent to the participants before the intervention. Suggestions were repeated on days 8 and 15 of the intervention via the app. RESULTS: Participants significantly increased their daily step count from baseline compared with 21 days of the intervention (t107=-8.62; P<.001) regardless of the suggestions. Participants in the positive suggestions group had more positive expectations regarding the app (B=-1.61, SE 0.47; P<.001) and higher expected engagement with the app (B=3.80, SE 0.63; P<.001) than the participants in the control group. No effects of suggestions on the step count (B=-22.05, SE 334.90; P=.95), perceived effectiveness of the app (B=0.78, SE 0.69; P=.26), engagement with the app (B=0.78, SE 0.75; P=.29), and vitality (B=0.01, SE 0.11; P=.95) were found. Positive suggestions decreased the fatigue of the participants during the 3 weeks of the intervention (B=0.11, SE 0.02; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the suggestions did not affect the number of daily steps, they increased the positive expectations of the participants and decreased their fatigue. These results indicate that adding positive suggestions to eHealth physical activity interventions might be a promising way of influencing subjective but not objective outcomes of interventions. Future research should focus on finding ways of strengthening the suggestions, as they have the potential to boost the effectiveness of eHealth interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/CWJES; https://osf.io/cwjes.@en

Background: Financial incentives are a promising tool to help people increase their physical activity, but they are expensive to provide. Deposit contracts are a type of financial incentive in which participants pledge their own money. However, low uptake is a crucial obstacle to the large-scale implementation of deposit contracts. Therefore, we investigated whether (1) matching the deposit 1:1 (doubling what is deposited) and (2) allowing for customizable deposit amounts increased the uptake and short term effectiveness of a deposit contract for physical activity. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 137 healthy students (age M = 21.6 years) downloaded a smartphone app that provided them with a tailored step goal and then randomized them to one of four experimental conditions. The deposit contract required either a €10 fixed deposit or a customizable deposit with any amount between €1 and €20 upfront. Furthermore, the deposit was either not matched or 1:1 matched (doubled) with a reward provided by the experiment. During 20 intervention days, daily feedback on goal progress and incentive earnings was provided by the app. We investigated effects on the uptake (measured as agreeing to participate and paying the deposit) and effectiveness of behavioral adoption (measured as participant days goal achieved). Findings: Overall, the uptake of deposit contracts was 83.2%, and participants (n = 113) achieved 14.9 out of 20 daily step goals. A binary logistic regression showed that uptake odds were 4.08 times higher when a deposit was matched (p = .010) compared to when it was not matched. Furthermore, uptake odds were 3.53 times higher when a deposit was customizable (p = .022) compared to when it was fixed. Two-way ANCOVA showed that matching (p = .752) and customization (p = .143) did not impact intervention effectiveness. However, we did find a marginally significant interaction effect of deposit matching X deposit customization (p = .063, ηp2 = 0.032). Customization decreased effectiveness when deposits were not matched (p = .033, ηp2 = 0.089), but had no effect when deposits were matched (p = .776, ηp2 = 0.001). Conclusions: We provide the first experimental evidence that both matching and customization increase the uptake of a deposit contract for physical activity. We recommend considering both matching and customization to overcome lack of uptake, with a preference for customization since matching a deposit imposes significant additional costs. However, since we found indications that customizable deposits might reduce effectiveness (when the deposits are not matched), we urge for more research on the effectiveness of customizable deposit contracts. Finally, future research should investigate which participant characteristics are predictive of deposit contract uptake and effectiveness. Pre-registration: OSF Registries, https://osf.io/cgq48.@en

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive interventions for improving physical activity have proven to be effective but costly. Deposit contracts (in which participants pledge their own money) could be an affordable alternative. In addition, deposit contracts may have superior effects by exploiting the power of loss aversion. Previous research has often operationalized deposit contracts through loss framing a financial reward (without requiring a deposit) to mimic the feelings of loss involved in a deposit contract. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to disentangle the effects of incurring actual losses (through self-funding a deposit contract) and loss framing. We investigated whether incentive conditions are more effective than a no-incentive control condition, whether deposit contracts have a lower uptake than financial rewards, whether deposit contracts are more effective than financial rewards, and whether loss frames are more effective than gain frames. METHODS: Healthy participants (N=126) with an average age of 22.7 (SD 2.84) years participated in a 20-day physical activity intervention. They downloaded a smartphone app that provided them with a personalized physical activity goal and either required a €10 (at the time of writing: €1=US $0.98) deposit up front (which could be lost) or provided €10 as a reward, contingent on performance. Daily feedback on incentive earnings was provided and framed as either a loss or gain. We used a 2 (incentive type: deposit or reward) × 2 (feedback frame: gain or loss) between-subjects factorial design with a no-incentive control condition. Our primary outcome was the number of days participants achieved their goals. The uptake of the intervention was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, financial incentive conditions (mean 13.10, SD 6.33 days goal achieved) had higher effectiveness than the control condition (mean 8.00, SD 5.65 days goal achieved; P=.002; ηp2=0.147). Deposit contracts had lower uptake (29/47, 62%) than rewards (50/50, 100%; P<.001; Cramer V=0.492). Furthermore, 2-way analysis of covariance showed that deposit contracts (mean 14.88, SD 6.40 days goal achieved) were not significantly more effective than rewards (mean 12.13, SD 6.17 days goal achieved; P=.17). Unexpectedly, loss frames (mean 10.50, SD 6.22 days goal achieved) were significantly less effective than gain frames (mean 14.67, SD 5.95 days goal achieved; P=.007; ηp2=0.155). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives help increase physical activity, but deposit contracts were not more effective than rewards. Although self-funded deposit contracts can be offered at low cost, low uptake is an important obstacle to large-scale implementation. Unexpectedly, loss framing was less effective than gain framing. Therefore, we urge further research on their boundary conditions before using loss-framed incentives in practice. Because of limited statistical power regarding some research questions, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution, and future work should be done to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registries osf.io/34ygt; https://osf.io/34ygt.@en

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive interventions for improving physical activity have proven to be effective but costly. Deposit contracts (in which participants pledge their own money) could be an affordable alternative. In addition, deposit contracts may have superior effects by exploiting the power of loss aversion. Previous research has often operationalized deposit contracts through loss framing a financial reward (without requiring a deposit) to mimic the feelings of loss involved in a deposit contract. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to disentangle the effects of incurring actual losses (through self-funding a deposit contract) and loss framing. We investigated whether incentive conditions are more effective than a no-incentive control condition, whether deposit contracts have a lower uptake than financial rewards, whether deposit contracts are more effective than financial rewards, and whether loss frames are more effective than gain frames. METHODS: Healthy participants (N=126) with an average age of 22.7 (SD 2.84) years participated in a 20-day physical activity intervention. They downloaded a smartphone app that provided them with a personalized physical activity goal and either required a €10 (at the time of writing: €1=US $0.98) deposit up front (which could be lost) or provided €10 as a reward, contingent on performance. Daily feedback on incentive earnings was provided and framed as either a loss or gain. We used a 2 (incentive type: deposit or reward) × 2 (feedback frame: gain or loss) between-subjects factorial design with a no-incentive control condition. Our primary outcome was the number of days participants achieved their goals. The uptake of the intervention was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, financial incentive conditions (mean 13.10, SD 6.33 days goal achieved) had higher effectiveness than the control condition (mean 8.00, SD 5.65 days goal achieved; P=.002; ηp2=0.147). Deposit contracts had lower uptake (29/47, 62%) than rewards (50/50, 100%; P<.001; Cramer V=0.492). Furthermore, 2-way analysis of covariance showed that deposit contracts (mean 14.88, SD 6.40 days goal achieved) were not significantly more effective than rewards (mean 12.13, SD 6.17 days goal achieved; P=.17). Unexpectedly, loss frames (mean 10.50, SD 6.22 days goal achieved) were significantly less effective than gain frames (mean 14.67, SD 5.95 days goal achieved; P=.007; ηp2=0.155). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives help increase physical activity, but deposit contracts were not more effective than rewards. Although self-funded deposit contracts can be offered at low cost, low uptake is an important obstacle to large-scale implementation. Unexpectedly, loss framing was less effective than gain framing. Therefore, we urge further research on their boundary conditions before using loss-framed incentives in practice. Because of limited statistical power regarding some research questions, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution, and future work should be done to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registries osf.io/34ygt; https://osf.io/34ygt.@en