BACKGROUND: Previous efforts to use incentives for weight loss have resulted in substantial weight regain after 16 weeks. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a longer term weight loss intervention using financial incentives. DESIGN: A 32-week, three-arm randomized controlled trial of financial incentives for weight loss consisting of a 24-week weight loss phase during which all participants were given a weight loss goal of 1 pound per week, followed by an 8-week maintenance phase. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans who were patients at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center with BMIs of 30-40. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to participate in either a weight-monitoring program involving a consultation with a dietician and monthly weigh-ins (control condition), or the same program with one of two financial incentive plans. Both incentive arms used deposit contracts (DC) in which participants put their own money at risk (matched 1:1), which they lost if they failed to lose weight. In one incentive arm participants were told that the period after 24 weeks was for weight-loss maintenance; in the other, no such distinction was made. MAIN MEASURE: Weight loss after 32 weeks. KEY RESULTS: Results were analyzed using intention-to-treat. There was no difference in weight loss between the incentive arms (P = 0.80). Incentive participants lost more weight than control participants [mean DC = 8.70 pounds, mean control = 1.17, P = 0.04, 95% CI of the difference in means (0.56, 14.50)]. Follow-up data 36 weeks after the 32-week intervention had ended indicated weight regain; the net weight loss between the incentive and control groups was no longer significant (mean DC = 1.2 pounds, 95% CI, -2.58-5.00; mean control = 0.27, 95% CI, -3.77-4.30, P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives produced significant weight loss over an 8-month intervention; however, participants regained weight post-intervention.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous efforts to use incentives for weight loss have resulted in substantial weight regain after 16 weeks. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a longer term weight loss intervention using financial incentives. DESIGN: A 32-week, three-arm randomized controlled trial of financial incentives for weight loss consisting of a 24-week weight loss phase during which all participants were given a weight loss goal of 1 pound per week, followed by an 8-week maintenance phase. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans who were patients at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center with BMIs of 30-40. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to participate in either a weight-monitoring program involving a consultation with a dietician and monthly weigh-ins (control condition), or the same program with one of two financial incentive plans. Both incentive arms used deposit contracts (DC) in which participants put their own money at risk (matched 1:1), which they lost if they failed to lose weight. In one incentive arm participants were told that the period after 24 weeks was for weight-loss maintenance; in the other, no such distinction was made. MAIN MEASURE: Weight loss after 32 weeks. KEY RESULTS: Results were analyzed using intention-to-treat. There was no difference in weight loss between the incentive arms (P = 0.80). Incentive participants lost more weight than control participants [mean DC = 8.70 pounds, mean control = 1.17, P = 0.04, 95% CI of the difference in means (0.56, 14.50)]. Follow-up data 36 weeks after the 32-week intervention had ended indicated weight regain; the net weight loss between the incentive and control groups was no longer significant (mean DC = 1.2 pounds, 95% CI, -2.58-5.00; mean control = 0.27, 95% CI, -3.77-4.30, P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives produced significant weight loss over an 8-month intervention; however, participants regained weight post-intervention.
Authors: R W Jeffery; A Drewnowski; L H Epstein; A J Stunkard; G T Wilson; R R Wing; D R Hill Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Stanley Heshka; James W Anderson; Richard L Atkinson; Frank L Greenway; James O Hill; Stephen D Phinney; Ronette L Kolotkin; Karen Miller-Kovach; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-04-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William C Knowler; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Sarah E Fowler; Richard F Hamman; John M Lachin; Elizabeth A Walker; David M Nathan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Donna H Ryan; Mark A Espeland; Gary D Foster; Steven M Haffner; Van S Hubbard; Karen C Johnson; Steven E Kahn; William C Knowler; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2003-10
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; Leslie K John; Andrea B Troxel; Laurie Norton; Jennifer Fassbender; George Loewenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shivan J Mehta; Jordyn Feingold; Matthew Vandertuyn; Tess Niewood; Catherine Cox; Chyke A Doubeni; Kevin G Volpp; David A Asch Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Aditi P Sen; Taylor B Sewell; E Brooks Riley; Beth Stearman; Scarlett L Bellamy; Michelle F Hu; Yuanyuan Tao; Jingsan Zhu; James D Park; George Loewenstein; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Braden K Mogler; Suzanne B Shu; Craig R Fox; Noah J Goldstein; Ronald G Victor; José J Escarce; Martin F Shapiro Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tammy Leonard; Kerem Shuval; Angela de Oliveira; Celette Sugg Skinner; Catherine Eckel; James C Murdoch Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2013 Mar-Apr