Observational studyPloS one2021
Financial implications of New York City's weight management initiative.
Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A brief online tool to increase behavioral weight loss treatment initiation: Protocol for a cluster randomized trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Exploring potential reach and representativeness of a self-weighing weight gain prevention intervention in adults with overweight and obesity.Clinical obesity · 2024Article
- A low-burden, self-weighing intervention to prevent weight gain in adults with obesity who do not enroll in comprehensive treatment.Obesity science & practice · 2024Article
- Privacy Concerns in Group Format Lifestyle Interventions for Obesity.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- Health economic evaluation of preventive digital public health interventions using decision-analytic modelling: a systematized review.BMC health services research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate potential annual savings in medical expenditures from a subsidized weight management program from the NYC Government perspective.
designLongitudinal observational study.
settingEmployees of New York City (NYC) government and enrolled dependents. SAMPLE: 14,946 participants with overweight and obesity.
interventionWW (formerly Weight Watchers®) 'Workshop' and 'Digital' programs. MEASURES: Participation rate, enrollment duration, weight change, and predicted gross and net total and per capita medical expenditure savings and return on investment (ROI). ANALYSIS: Participation rate, enrollment duration, weight change, and program costs are based on direct observation. Predicted savings are simulated based on published data relating weight loss to medical expenditure reductions.
resultsIn total, 47% of participating employees and 50% of participating dependents lost weight during the enrollment period. Mean (median) enrollment duration for employees was 7.1 months (7.0) and for dependents was 6.9 months (6.0). Mean (median) weight losses for the employees in 'Workshops' and 'Digital' was 6.6 lbs (2.80) and 6.3 lbs (0.0). For dependents, weight losses were 7.4 lbs (3.59) and 11.6 lbs (2.0). Per capita and total predicted net savings to NYC Government from employees was estimated to be $120 and $1,486,102 for an ROI of 143%. Including dependents, predicted net savings increases to $1,963,431 for an ROI of 189%. Over 80% of savings came from participants in the Obese III category.
conclusionAn evidence-based weight management program has the potential to generate a positive ROI for employers. Future studies should validate these estimates using actual data and more rigorous designs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.