Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJohn, Leslie
dc.contributor.authorTroxel, Andrea B.
dc.contributor.authorYancy, William S.
dc.contributor.authorFriedman, Joelle
dc.contributor.authorZhu, Jingsan
dc.contributor.authorYang, Lin
dc.contributor.authorGalvin, Robert
dc.contributor.authorMiller-Kovach, Karen
dc.contributor.authorHalpern, Scott D.
dc.contributor.authorLoewenstein, George
dc.contributor.authorVolpp, Kevin
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-15T13:19:58Z
dc.date.issued2018-01
dc.identifier.citationJohn, Leslie K., Andrea Troxel, William Yancy, Joelle Y. Friedman, Jingsan Zhu, Lin Yang, Robert Galvin, Karen Miller-Kovach, Scott Halpern, George Loewenstein, and Kevin Volpp. "The Effect of Cost Sharing on an Employee Weight Loss Program: A Randomized Trial." American Journal of Health Promotion 32, no. 1 (January 2018): 170–176.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0890-1171en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41845076*
dc.description.abstractPurpose: We tested the effects of employer subsidies on employee enrollment, attendance, and weight loss in a nationally-available weight management program. Design: A randomized trial tested the impact of employer subsidy: 100%; 80% 50% and a hybrid 50% subsidy that could become a 100% subsidy by attaining attendance targets. Trial registration: NCT01756066. Setting and Subjects: 23,023 employees of two U.S. companies. Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of employees who enrolled in the weight management program. We also tested whether the subsidies were associated with differential attendance and weight loss over 12 months, as might be predicted by the expectation that they attract employees with differing degrees of motivation. Analysis and Results: Enrollment differed significantly by subsidy level (p<.0001). The 100% subsidy produced the highest enrollment (7.7%), significantly higher than each of the lower subsidies (vs. 80% subsidy: 6.2%, p=.002; vs. 50% subsidy: 3.9%, p<.0001; vs. hybrid: 3.7%, p<.0001). Enrollment in the 80% subsidy group was significantly higher than both lower subsidy groups (vs. 50% subsidy: 3.9%, p<.0001; vs. hybrid: 3.7%, p<.0001). Among enrollees, there were no differences among the four groups in attendance or weight loss. Conclusion: This pragmatic trial, conducted in a real-world workplace setting, suggests that higher rates of employer subsidization help individuals to enroll in weight loss programs, without a decrement in program effectiveness. Future research could explore the cost effectiveness of such subsidies or alternative designs.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0890117116671282en_US
dash.licenseOAP
dc.subjectMotivation and Incentivesen_US
dc.subjectBehavioren_US
dc.subjectHealth Disordersen_US
dc.subjectHealth Care and Treatmenten_US
dc.subjectCompensation and Benefitsen_US
dc.subjectUnited Statesen_US
dc.titleThe Effect of Cost Sharing on an Employee Weight Loss Program: A Randomized Trialen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.relation.journalAmerican Journal of Health Promotionen_US
dash.depositing.authorJohn, Leslie
dc.date.available2019-11-15T13:19:58Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0890117116671282
dc.source.journalAm J Health Promot
dash.source.volume32;1
dash.source.page170-176
dash.contributor.affiliatedJohn, Leslie


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record