A randomized feasibility pilot trial of a financial incentives intervention for dietary self-monitoring and weight loss in adults with obesity

A non-randomized comparison of engagement and outcomes for in-person versus virtual delivery of the Partner2Lose weight management trial

Objective

Existing behavioral weight management interventions produce clinically meaningful weight loss. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the quick transition of such interventions from in-person to virtual platforms. This provided a unique opportunity to compare engagement and outcomes for an in-person versus virtually delivered weight management intervention.

Methods

A non-randomized comparison of engagement and weight outcomes was performed between two cohorts who participated in a weight management intervention in person (N = 97) versus three who participated virtually via videoconference (N = 134). Various metrics of engagement were examined, including group class and individual phone call attendance and duration, and retention for weight assessments. Behavioral targets of daily caloric intake and step-counts and the clinical weight outcome were explored.

Results

Cohorts (mean [standard deviation] age 47.3 (11.5), 67.1% women: 86.8% White) that participated virtually attended more group sessions (p < 0.001) and had maintenance telephone calls that were of a longer duration (p < 0.001). No other engagement or weight outcomes significantly differed by delivery modality.

Conclusions

Virtual weight management programs are promising and may generate similar outcomes to those delivered in-person. Future research should seek to understand how best to promote and sustain engagement in virtual interventions.

Outcomes from Partner2Lose: a randomized controlled trial to evaluate 24-month weight loss in a partner-assisted intervention

BACKGROUND

Partner support is associated with better weight loss outcomes in observational studies, but randomized trials show mixed results for including partners. Unclear is whether teaching communication skills to couples will improve weight loss in a person attempting weight loss (index participant).

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of a partner-assisted intervention versus participant-only weight management program on 24-month weight loss.

METHODS

This community-based study took place in Madison, WI. Index participants were eligible if they met obesity guideline criteria to receive weight loss counseling, were aged 18-74 years, lived with a partner, and had no medical contraindications to weight loss; partners were aged 18-74 years and not underweight. Couples were randomized 1:1 to a partner-assisted or participant-only intervention. Index participants in both arms received an evidence-based weight management program. In the partner-assisted arm, partners attended half of the intervention sessions, and couples were trained in communication skills. The primary outcome was index participant weight at 24 months, assessed by masked personnel; secondary outcomes were 24-month self-reported caloric intake and average daily steps assessed by an activity tracker. General linear mixed models were used to compare group differences in these outcomes following intent-to-treat principles.

RESULTS

Among couples assigned to partner-assisted (n = 115) or participant-only intervention (n = 116), most index participants identified as female (67%) and non-Hispanic White (87%). Average baseline age was 47.27 years (SD 11.51 years) and weight was 106.55 kg (SD 19.41 kg). The estimated mean 24-month weight loss was similar in the partner-assisted (2.66 kg) and participant-only arms (2.89 kg) (estimated mean difference, 0.23 kg [95% CI, -1.58, 2.04 kg], p=0.80). There were no differences in 24-month average daily caloric intake (estimated mean difference 50 cal [95% CI: -233, 132 cal], p=0.59) or steps (estimated mean difference 806 steps [95% CI: -1675, 64 steps], p=0.07). The percentage of participants reporting an adverse event with at least possible attribution to the intervention did not differ by arm (partner-assisted: 9%, participant-only, 3%, p = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Partner-assisted and individual weight management interventions led to similar outcomes in index participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03801174, January 11, 2019.

Program Factors Affecting Weight Loss and Mobility in Older Adults: Evidence From the Mobility and Vitality Lifestyle Program (MOVE UP)

Background. The Mobility and Vitality Lifestyle Program (MOVE UP) is a behavioral weight-management intervention for improving mobility among community-dwelling older adults. We examined program factors that affect implementation outcomes and participant-level health outcomes. Methods. The MOVE UP program was implemented in the greater Pittsburgh area from January 2015 to June 2019 to improve lower extremity performance in community-dwelling older adults who were overweight or obese. Thirty-two sessions were delivered over 13 months. All sessions were designed to be 1-hour in length, on-site, group-based, and led by trained and supported community health workers (CHWs). Participants completed weekly Lifestyle Logs for self-monitoring of body weight, diet, and physical activity. We evaluated the MOVE UP program using the RE-AIM framework, and collected quantitative data at baseline, 5-, 9-, and 13-months. Multilevel linear regression models assessed the impacts of program factors (site, CHW, and participant characteristics) on implementation outcomes and participant-level health outcomes. Results. Twenty-two CHWs delivered MOVE UP program to 303 participants in 26 cohorts. Participants were similar to the target source population in weight but differed in some demographic characteristics. The program was effective for weight loss and lower extremity function in both intervention and maintenance periods (ps < .01), with an independent effect for Lifestyle Logs submission but not session attendance. Discussion. CHWs were able to deliver a multi-component weight loss intervention effectively in community settings. CHW and site characteristics had independent impacts on participants' adherence. Lifestyle Log submission may be a more potent measure of adherence in weight loss interventions than attendance.

Primary outcomes from Partner2Lose: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate partner involvement on long-term weight loss

Background

Partner support is associated with better weight loss outcomes in observational studies, but randomized trials show mixed results for including partners. Unclear is whether teaching communication skills to couples will improve weight loss in index participants.

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of a partner-assisted intervention versus participant-only weight management program on long-term weight loss.

Methods

This community-based study took place in Madison, WI. Index participants were eligible if they met obesity guideline criteria to receive weight loss counseling, were aged 74 years or younger, lived with a partner, and had no medical contraindications to weight loss; partners were aged 74 years or younger and not underweight. Couples were randomized 1:1 to a partner-assisted or participant-only intervention. Index participants in both arms received an evidence-based weight management program. In the partner-assisted arm, partners attended half of the intervention sessions, and couples were trained in communication skills. The primary outcome was index participant weight at 24 months, assessed by masked personnel; secondary outcomes were 24-month self-reported caloric intake and average daily steps assessed by an activity tracker. General linear mixed models were used to compare group differences in these outcomes following intent-to-treat principles.

Results

Among couples assigned to partner-assisted (n=115) or participant-only intervention (n=116), most index participants identified as female (67%) and non-Hispanic White (87%). Average baseline age was 47.27 years (SD 11.51 years) and weight was 106.55 kg (SD 19.41 kg). The estimated mean 24-month weight loss was similar in the partner-assisted (2.66 kg) and participant-only arms (2.89 kg) (estimated mean difference, 0.23 kg [95% CI, -1.58, 2.04 kg]). There were no differences in 24-month average daily caloric intake (50 cal [95% CI: -233, 132 cal]) or steps (806 steps [95% CI: -1675, 64 steps]). The percentage of participants reporting an adverse event with at least possible attribution to the intervention did not differ by arm (partner-assisted: 9%, participant-only, 3%, p=0.11).

Conclusions

Partner-assisted and individual weight management interventions led to similar outcomes in index participants.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03801174.

Experiences of conditional and unconditional cash transfers intended for improving health outcomes and health service use: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

It is well known that poverty is associated with ill health and that ill health can result in direct and indirect costs that can perpetuate poverty. Social protection, which includes policies and programmes intended to prevent and reduce poverty in times of ill health, could be one way to break this vicious cycle. Social protection, particularly cash transfers, also has the potential to promote healthier behaviours, including healthcare seeking. Although social protection, particularly conditional and unconditional cash transfers, has been widely studied, it is not well known how recipients experience social protection interventions, and what unintended effects such interventions can cause.   OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to explore how conditional and unconditional cash transfer social protection interventions with a health outcome are experienced and perceived by their recipients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Social Services Abstracts, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, AnthroSource and EconLit from the start of the database to 5 June 2020. We combined this with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature and contact with authors to identify additional studies. We reran all strategies in July 2022, and the new studies are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included primary studies, using qualitative methods or mixed-methods studies with qualitative research reporting on recipients' experiences of cash transfer interventions where health outcomes were evaluated. Recipients could be adult patients of healthcare services, the general adult population as recipients of cash targeted at themselves or directed at children. Studies could be evaluated on any mental or physical health condition or cash transfer mechanism. Studies could come from any country and be in any language. Two authors independently selected studies.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a multi-step purposive sampling framework for selecting studies, starting with geographical representation, followed by health condition, and richness of data. Key data were extracted by the authors into Excel. Methodological limitations were assessed independently using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria by two authors. Data were synthesised using meta-ethnography, and confidence in findings was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 127 studies in the review and sampled 41 of these studies for our analysis. Thirty-two further studies were found after the updated search on 5 July 2022 and are awaiting classification. The sampled studies were from 24 different countries: 17 studies were from the African region, seven were from the region of the Americas, seven were from the European region, six were from the South-East Asian region, three from the Western Pacific region and one study was multiregional, covering both the African and the Eastern Mediterranean regions. These studies primarily explored the views and experiences of cash transfer recipients with different health conditions, such as infectious diseases, disabilities and long-term illnesses, sexual and reproductive health, and maternal and child health. Our GRADE-CERQual assessment indicated we had mainly moderate- and high-confidence findings. We found that recipients perceived the cash transfers as necessary and helpful for immediate needs and, in some cases, helpful for longer-term benefits. However, across conditional and unconditional programmes, recipients often felt that the amount given was too little in relation to their total needs. They also felt that the cash alone was not enough to change their behaviour and, to change behaviour, additional types of support would be required. The cash transfer was reported to have important effects on empowerment, autonomy and agency, but also in some settings, recipients experienced pressure from family or programme staff on cash usage. The cash transfer was reported to improve social cohesion and reduce intrahousehold tension. However, in settings where some received the cash and others did not, the lack of an equal approach caused tension, suspicion and conflict. Recipients also reported stigma in terms of cash transfer programme assessment processes and eligibility, as well as inappropriate eligibility processes. Across settings, recipients experienced barriers in accessing the cash transfer programme, and some refused or were hesitant to receive the cash. Some recipients found cash transfer programmes more acceptable when they agreed with the programme's goals and processes.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the impact of the sociocultural context on the functioning and interaction between the individual, family and cash transfer programmes. Even where the goals of a cash transfer programme are explicitly health-related, the outcomes may be far broader than health alone and may include, for example, reduced stigma, empowerment and increased agency of the individual. When measuring programme outcomes, therefore, these broader impacts could be considered for understanding the health and well-being benefits of cash transfers.

Effectiveness of Incentives for Improving Diabetes-Related Health Indicators in Chronic Disease Lifestyle Modification Programs: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

We examined the effectiveness of providing incentives to participants in lifestyle modification programs to improve diabetes-related health indicators: body weight, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, cholesterol, and hemoglobin A_1C (HbA_1C). We also examined the potential effect of 4 different incentive domains (ie, type, monetary value, attainment certainty, and schedule) on those indicators.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published from January 2008 through August 2021. We used a random-effects model to pool study results and examine between-study heterogeneity by using the I² statistic and the Cochran Q test. We also conducted moderator analyses by using a mixed-effects model to examine differences between subgroups of incentive domains (eg, incentive type [cash vs other types]).

Results

Our search yielded 10,965 articles, of which 19 randomized controlled trials met our selection criteria. The random-effects model revealed that, relative to the control group, the incentive group had significant reductions in weight (−1.85kg; 95% CI, −2.40 to −1.29; P < .001), BMI (−0.47kg/m²; 95% CI, −0.71 to −0.22; P < .001), and both systolic blood pressure (−2.59 mm HG; 95% CI, −4.98 to −0.20; P = .03) and diastolic blood pressure (−2.62 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.64; P = .01). A reduction in cholesterol level was noted but was not significant (−2.81 mg/dL; 95% CI, −8.89 to −3.28; P = .37). One study found a significant reduction in hemoglobin A_1c (−0.17%; 95% CI, −0.30% to −0.05%; P < .05). The moderator analyses showed that the incentive effect did not vary significantly between the subgroups of the incentive domains, except on weight loss for the attainment certainty domain, suggesting that a variety of incentive subgroups could be equally useful.

Conclusion

Providing incentives in lifestyle modification programs is a promising strategy to decrease weight, BMI, and blood pressure.