Low-Income Participants' Preference Between Financial Incentives for Behavioral Goals vs Weight Loss Targets and Associations With Behavioral Goal Adherence.

PURPOSE: Examine associations between whether participants' were matched to their preferred financial incentive design and behavioral goal adherence in a weight management intervention. DESIGN: Secondary quantitative analysis incorporating qualitative survey data. SETTING: Primary care clinics in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in New York City and Los Angeles. SUBJECTS: 668 participants (mean age 47.7 years, 81.0% female, 72.6% Hispanic) with obesity were enrolled in the Financial Incentives foR Weight Reduction (FIReWoRk) intervention. MEASURES: We explored qualitatively participant's reasons for hypothetically choosing a behavioral goal-directed vs a weight loss outcome-based financial incentive program. Additionally, behavioral adherence to different goals was collected at the 6-month timepoint, categorized by match to preferred financial incentive design. ANALYSIS: Logistic regression was used to examine if participants with certain demographic and higher psychosocial factors were more likely to choose goal-directed over outcome-based incentives. Additionally, logistic regression was used to test for associations between preference and behavioral adherence, using incentive type as an interaction term. RESULTS: 60.2% of participants preferred the goal-directed incentive, with the majority stating that it was more structured. Married participants were more likely to prefer goal-directed incentives (OR = 1.57, CI = 1.06-2.33, P = .025). Moderation analysis revealed that participants who preferred goal-directed and were matched to goal-directed had greater rates of behavioral adherence for program attendance and self-weighing, but not dietary tracking and physical activity tracking, compared to those who preferred outcome-based and were matched to outcome-based. CONCLUSION: Receiving one's preferred incentive design may not play a strong role in behavioral goal adherence during financially incentivized weight loss interventions.

Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives for weight management may increase use of evidence-based strategies while addressing obesity-related economic disparities in low-income populations. Objective: To examine the effects of 2 financial incentive strategies developed using behavioral economic theory when added to provision of weight management resources. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-group, randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2017 to May 2021 at 3 hospital-based clinics in New York City, New York, and Los Angeles, California. A total of 1280 adults with obesity living in low-income neighborhoods were invited to participate, and 668 were enrolled. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to goal-directed incentives, outcome-based incentives, or a resources-only group. The resources-only group participants were given a 1-year commercial weight-loss program membership, self-monitoring tools (digital scale, food journal, and physical activity monitor), health education, and monthly one-on-one check-in visits. The goal-directed group included resources and linked financial incentives to evidence-based weight-loss behaviors. The outcome-based arm included resources and linked financial incentives to percentage of weight loss. Participants in the incentive groups could earn up to $750. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients achieving 5% or greater weight loss at 6 months. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 668 participants enrolled was 47.7 (12.4) years; 541 (81.0%) were women, 485 (72.6%) were Hispanic, and 99 (14.8%) were Black. The mean (SD) weight at enrollment was 98.96 (20.54) kg, and the mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was 37.95 (6.55). At 6 months, the adjusted proportion of patients who lost at least 5% of baseline weight was 22.1% in the resources-only group, 39.0% in the goal-directed group, and 49.1% in the outcome-based incentive group (difference, 10.08 percentage points [95% CI, 1.31-18.85] for outcome based vs goal directed; difference, 27.03 percentage points [95% CI, 18.20-35.86] and 16.95 percentage points [95% CI, 8.18-25.72] for outcome based or goal directed vs resources only, respectively). However, mean percentage of weight loss was similar in the incentive arms. Mean earned incentives was $440.44 in the goal-directed group and $303.56 in the outcome-based group, but incentives did not improve financial well-being. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, outcome-based and goal-directed financial incentives were similarly effective, and both strategies were more effective than providing resources only for clinically significant weight loss in low-income populations with obesity. Future studies should evaluate cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03157713.

Goal-directed versus outcome-based financial incentives for weight loss among low-income patients with obesity: rationale and design of the Financial Incentives foR Weight Reduction (FIReWoRk) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is a major public health challenge and exacerbates economic disparities through employment discrimination and increased personal health expenditures. Financial incentives for weight management may intensify individuals' utilisation of evidence-based behavioural strategies while addressing obesity-related economic disparities in low-income populations. Trials have focused on testing incentives contingent on achieving weight loss outcomes. However, based on social cognitive and self-determination theories, providing incentives for achieving intermediate behavioural goals may be more sustainable than incentivising outcomes if they enhance an individual's skills and self-efficacy for maintaining long-term weight loss. The objective of this paper is to describe the rationale and design of the Financial Incentives foR Weight Reduction study, a randomised controlled trial to test the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two financial incentive strategies for weight loss (goal directed vs outcome based) among low-income adults with obesity, as well as compared with the provision of health behaviour change resources alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are recruiting 795 adults, aged 18-70 years with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, from three primary care clinics serving residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods in New York City and Los Angeles. All participants receive a 1-year commercial weight loss programme membership, self-monitoring tools (bathroom scale, food journal and Fitbit Alta HR), health education and monthly check-in visits. In addition to these resources, those in the two intervention groups can earn up to $750 over 6 months for: (1) participating in an intensive weight management programme, self-monitoring weight and diet and meeting physical activity guidelines (goal-directed arm); or (2) a ≥1.5% to ≥5% reduction in baseline weight (outcome-based arm). To maximise incentive efficacy, we incorporate concepts from behavioural economics, including immediacy of payments and framing feedback to elicit regret aversion. We will use generalised mixed effect models for repeated measures to examine intervention effects on weight at 6, 9 and 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human research protection committees at New York University School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) David Geffen School of Medicine and Olive-View-UCLA Medical Center granted ethics approval. We will disseminate the results of this research via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03157713.