The effectiveness of loyalty rewards to promote the use of an internet-based heart health program

Abstract

Internet-based health programs have been shown to be effective in reducing risk for cardiovascular disease. However, their rates of enrollment and engagement remain low. It is currently unclear whether rewards from established loyalty programs can serve as a conditioned stimulus to improve the use of a freely available Internet-based program. Objective: The objectives of the study were to (1) examine enrollment rates and levels of engagement with the My Health eSupport program between a Conditioned Reward group and a Control group, and (2) investigate the influence of loyalty rewards and participant characteristics on levels of enrollment and program engagement. Methods: The study sample (n=142,726) consisted of individuals who were offered enrollment in an Internet-based health intervention (My Health eSupport) after completing the Hearts Risk Assessment on the Heart and Stroke Foundation website. My Health eSupport programs provided encouragement and tips for lifestyle change. This is a free, self-guided, fully automated program that proactively delivers tailored email messages at 2-week intervals based on the participant's stage of motivational "readiness" and priority for lifestyle change. Participants in the Conditioned Reward group were offered a single exposure of 20 loyalty reward points from the Air Miles loyalty program for completing the Hearts Risk Assessment (10 reward points) and enrolling in the Internet-based program (10 reward points). Meanwhile, no rewards were given to the Control group participants. All data were collected between February 1, 2011 and February 10, 2012. Results: In total, 51.38% (73,327/142,726) of individuals in the Conditioned Reward group and 48.62% (69,399/142,726) of individuals in the Control group completed the Hearts Risk Assessment. Subsequently, significantly more individuals from the Conditioned Reward group (52.96%, 38,835/73,327) enrolled in the My Health eSupport program than Controls (4.07%, 2826/69,399). Regression analyses indicated that individuals were 27.9 times (95% CI 26.4-29.4; P