Eric M VanEpps1, Andrea B Troxel2, Elizabeth Villamil3, Kathryn A Saulsgiver4,5,6, Jingsan Zhu4, Jo-Yu Chin3, Jacqueline Matson3, Joseph Anarella7, Patrick Roohan8, Foster Gesten3, Kevin G Volpp4,9,10,11. 1. 1 David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. 2 Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 3. 3 New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA. 4. 4 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. 5 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. 6 BetterUp, San Franscisco, CA, USA. 7. 7 Consultant, Albany, NY, USA. 8. 8 MVP Health Care, Schenectady, NY, USA. 9. 9 Department of Health Care Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 10. 10 Departments of Medicine and Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 11. 11 Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether different financial incentives are effective in promoting weight loss among prediabetic Medicaid recipients. DESIGN: Four-group, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid managed care enrollees residing in New York, aged 18 to 64 years, and diagnosed as prediabetic or high risk for diabetes (N = 703). INTERVENTION: In a 16-week program, participants were randomly assigned to one of 4 arms: (1) control (no incentives), (2) process incentives for attending weekly Diabetes Prevention Program sessions, (3) outcome incentives for achieving weekly weight loss goals, and (4) combined process and outcome incentives. MEASURES: Weight loss over a 16-week period; proportion who completed educational sessions; proportion who met weight loss goals. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: No intervention arm achieved greater reduction in weight than control (outcome incentive -6.6 lb [-9.1 to -4.1 lb], process incentive -7.3 lb [-9.5 to -5.1 lb], combined incentive -5.8 lb [-8.8 to -2.8 lb], control -7.9 lb [-11.1 to -4.7 lb]; all P > .29). Session attendance in the process incentive arm (50%) was significantly higher than control (31%; P < .0001) and combined incentive arms (28%; P < .0001), but not significantly higher than the outcome incentive arm (38%). CONCLUSION: Process incentives increased session attendance, but when combined at half strength with outcome incentives did not achieve that effect. There were no significant effects of either process or outcomes incentives on weight loss.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine whether different financial incentives are effective in promoting weight loss among prediabetic Medicaid recipients. DESIGN: Four-group, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid managed care enrollees residing in New York, aged 18 to 64 years, and diagnosed as prediabetic or high risk for diabetes (N = 703). INTERVENTION: In a 16-week program, participants were randomly assigned to one of 4 arms: (1) control (no incentives), (2) process incentives for attending weekly Diabetes Prevention Program sessions, (3) outcome incentives for achieving weekly weight loss goals, and (4) combined process and outcome incentives. MEASURES: Weight loss over a 16-week period; proportion who completed educational sessions; proportion who met weight loss goals. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: No intervention arm achieved greater reduction in weight than control (outcome incentive -6.6 lb [-9.1 to -4.1 lb], process incentive -7.3 lb [-9.5 to -5.1 lb], combined incentive -5.8 lb [-8.8 to -2.8 lb], control -7.9 lb [-11.1 to -4.7 lb]; all P > .29). Session attendance in the process incentive arm (50%) was significantly higher than control (31%; P < .0001) and combined incentive arms (28%; P < .0001), but not significantly higher than the outcome incentive arm (38%). CONCLUSION: Process incentives increased session attendance, but when combined at half strength with outcome incentives did not achieve that effect. There were no significant effects of either process or outcomes incentives on weight loss.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medicaid; diabetes prevention; financial incentives; outcome; process; weight loss
Authors: Eric M VanEpps; Andrea B Troxel; Elizabeth Villamil; Kathryn A Saulsgiver; Jingsan Zhu; Jo-Yu Chin; Jacqueline Matson; Joseph Anarella; Patrick Roohan; Foster Gesten; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2018-02-01
Authors: Kar-Fu Yeung; Yu Qi Lee; Mary Foong Fong Chong; Mihir Gandhi; Amanda Yun Rui Lam; Selly Julianty; Gilbert Choon Seng Tan; Emily Tse Lin Ho; Su-Yen Goh; Gavin Siew Wei Tan; Eugene Jin Wen Shum; Eric A Finkelstein; Tazeen H Jafar; Rob M van Dam; Yee Leong Teoh; Julian Thumboo; Yong Mong Bee Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2022-10
Authors: Jay R Desai; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez; Gretchen Taylor; Sara Johnson; Julie Anderson; Joyce E Garrett; Todd Gilmer; Houa Vue-Her; Sarah Rinn; Katelyn Engel; Jeff Schiff; Patrick J O'Connor Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Peter P Reese; Iwan Barankay; Mary Putt; Louise B Russell; Jiali Yan; Jingsan Zhu; Qian Huang; George Loewenstein; Rolf Andersen; Heidi Testa; Adam S Mussell; David Pagnotti; Lisa E Wesby; Karen Hoffer; Kevin G Volpp Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-10-01