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

Abstract

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: = .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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.