Financial Incentive-Based Approaches for Weight Loss A Randomized Trial

被引:599
|
作者
Volpp, Kevin G. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
John, Leslie K. [7 ]
Troxel, Andrea B. [1 ,5 ,6 ]
Norton, Laurie [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Fassbender, Jennifer [5 ,6 ]
Loewenstein, George [1 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Leonard Davis Inst Hlth Econ, Ctr Hlth Incent, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Philadelphia Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Ctr Hlth Equ Res & Promot, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA USA
[3] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Dept Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Wharton Sch, Dept Hlth Care Management, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Ctr Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[6] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Dept Biostat & Epidemiol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[7] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Social & Decis Sci, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
来源
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.2008.804
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context Identifying effective obesity treatment is both a clinical challenge and a public health priority due to the health consequences of obesity. Objective To determine whether common decision errors identified by behavioral economists such as prospect theory, loss aversion, and regret could be used to design an effective weight loss intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants Fifty- seven healthy participants aged 30- 70 years with a body mass index of 30- 40 were randomized to 3 weight loss plans: monthly weigh- ins, a lottery incentive program, or a deposit contract that allowed for participant matching, with a weight loss goal of 1 lb ( 0.45 kg) a week for 16 weeks. Participants were recruited May- August 2007 at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center in Pennsylvania and were followed up through June 2008. Main Outcome Measures Weight loss after 16 weeks. Results The incentive groups lost significantly more weight than the control group ( mean, 3.9 lb). Compared with the control group, the lottery group lost a mean of 13.1 lb ( 95% confidence interval [ CI] of the difference in means, 1.95- 16.40; P=. 02) and the deposit contract group lost a mean of 14.0 lb ( 95% CI of the difference in means, 3.69- 16.43; P =. 006). About half of those in both incentive groups met the 16- lb target weight loss: 47.4% ( 95% CI, 24.5%- 71.1%) in the deposit contract group and 52.6% ( 95% CI, 28.9%- 75.6%) in the lottery group, whereas 10.5% ( 95% CI, 1.3%- 33.1%; P=. 01) in the control group met the 16- lb target. Although the net weight loss between enrollment in the study and at the end of 7 months was larger in the incentive groups ( 9.2 lb; t= 1.21; 95% CI, - 3.20 to 12.66; P=. 23, in the lottery group and 6.2 lb; t= 0.52; 95% CI, - 5.17 to 8.75; P=. 61 in the deposit contract group) than in the control group ( 4.4 lb), these differences were not statistically significant. However, incentive participants weighed significantly less at 7 months than at the study start ( P=. 01 for the lottery group; P=. 03 for the deposit contract group) whereas controls did not. Conclusions The use of economic incentives produced significant weight loss during the 16 weeks of intervention that was not fully sustained. The longer- term use of incentives should be evaluated. Trial Registration clinicaltrials. gov Identifier: NCT00520611.
引用
收藏
页码:2631 / 2637
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Changes in Intensity of Physical Activity during a University Incentive-Based Weight Loss Challenge
    Mospan, Jessica E.
    Pivarnik, James M.
    Knous, Jeremy L.
    MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 2014, 46 (05): : 505 - 505
  • [12] A randomized trial comparing two approaches to weight loss
    Carels, Robert A.
    Borushok, Jessica
    Taylor, Maija
    Rossi, James
    Hoffmann, Debra
    Burmeister, Jacob
    Hinman, Nova
    Marx, Jenna
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 22 (07) : 943 - 950
  • [13] Mechanisms and impacts of an incentive-based conservation program with evidence from a randomized control trial
    Wiik, Emma
    Jones, Julia P. G.
    Pynegar, Edwin
    Bottazzi, Patrick
    Asquith, Nigel
    Gibbons, James
    Kontoleon, Andreas
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2020, 34 (05) : 1076 - 1088
  • [14] A randomized trial comparing two approaches to weight loss: Differences in weight loss maintenance
    Carels, Robert A.
    Burmeister, Jacob M.
    Koball, Afton M.
    Oehlhof, Marissa W.
    Hinman, Nova
    LeRoy, Michelle
    Bannon, Erin
    Ashrafioun, Lee
    Storfer-Isser, Amy
    Darby, Lynn A.
    Gumble, Amanda
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2014, 19 (02) : 296 - 311
  • [15] Financial Incentives for Extended Weight Loss: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
    Leslie K. John
    George Loewenstein
    Andrea B. Troxel
    Laurie Norton
    Jennifer E. Fassbender
    Kevin G. Volpp
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2011, 26 : 621 - 626
  • [16] Financial Incentives for Extended Weight Loss: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
    John, Leslie K.
    Loewenstein, George
    Troxel, Andrea B.
    Norton, Laurie
    Fassbender, Jennifer E.
    Volpp, Kevin G.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2011, 26 (06) : 621 - 626
  • [17] Changes in Intensity of Physical Activity and Diet During a University Incentive-Based Weight Loss Challenge
    Mospan, Jessica E.
    Lowry, John E.
    MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE, 2015, 47 (05): : 390 - 390
  • [18] Impact of a Financial Incentive on Engagement and Weight Loss in a Corporate Weight Loss Program
    Clynes, Sasha
    Church, Tim
    Woodcock, Brian
    Doherty, Michael
    OBESITY, 2024, 32 : 181 - 181
  • [19] Remote Alcohol Monitoring to Facilitate Incentive-Based Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized Trial
    Koffarnus, Mikhail N.
    Bickel, Warren K.
    Kablinger, Anita S.
    ALCOHOL-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 2018, 42 (12): : 2423 - 2431
  • [20] The Role of Behavioral Economic Incentive Design and Demographic Characteristics in Financial Incentive-Based Approaches to Changing Health Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis
    Haff, Nancy
    Patel, Mitesh S.
    Lim, Raymond
    Zhu, Jingsan
    Troxel, Andrea B.
    Asch, David A.
    Volpp, Kevin G.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION, 2015, 29 (05) : 314 - 323