A new study published in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that combining meal-replacement therapy with financial incentives can lead to greater weight loss in adolescents with severe obesity.

Researchers, including Dr. Justin Ryder from Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, found that teens who received both meal-replacement therapy and monetary rewards for weight loss achieved a higher reduction in body mass index (BMI) compared to those who only received meal-replacement therapy.

“There’s literature for adults that supports that tying in financial incentives to weight loss or physical activity programs increases adherence, and so we wanted to see whether or not adding financial incentives to a behavioural/nutrition weight loss program using meal replacement therapy would increase adherence and through adherence, increase the efficacy of the treatment,” Dr Ryder said.

The study, which involved 126 adolescents, comes at a time when severe obesity affects approximately one in five children and teens in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This condition is linked to increased risks of adult obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

In the year-long study, 63 participants received meal-replacement therapy plus financial incentives, while another 63 received only meal-replacement therapy. The therapy included pre-portioned meals totaling 1,200 calories per day, with financial incentives provided based on weight reduction from baseline.

After 52 weeks, the group receiving both interventions showed a greater BMI reduction (6 percentage points) and a larger decrease in total body fat mass (4.8 kilograms) compared to the group receiving only meal-replacement therapy.

Dr. Ryder noted, “There’s literature for adults that supports that tying in financial incentives to weight loss or physical activity programs increases adherence, and so we wanted to see whether or not adding financial incentives to a behavioral/nutrition weight loss program using meal replacement therapy would increase adherence and through adherence, increase the efficacy of the treatment.”

The researchers also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, finding that despite the additional expense of meal replacements per pound lost, the combined approach was cost-effective.

Additional work is also needed to develop interventions that extend beyond one year, according to the authors.

“While financial incentives plus MRT appears to be a longer-term strategy than MRT alone, treatment withdrawal will likely result in BMI increase. As such, research is needed to identify strategies that are scalable and feasible in the long term given the chronic nature of obesity,” the authors wrote.

(Inputs from ANI)