skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Behavioral interventions to reduce obesity for children: Remotely-delivered programs

Healthcare: Obesity and Diabetes
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated December 2014.
This program was archived December 2024.
The behavioral interventions included in this analysis target obese and overweight youth under age 18, providing them with counseling, education, and other supports to improve diet, increase physical activity, and reduce weight. The programs use techniques designed to promote and sustain behavioral changes, including goal setting, self-monitoring, stimulus control, and other strategies. The programs in this category provided were delivered remotely, usually via computer or phone.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our 2023 Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $15 Benefits minus costs ($52)
Participants $7 Benefit to cost ratio $0.32
Others $32 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($30) benefits greater than the costs 49%
Total benefits $24
Net program cost ($76)
Benefits minus cost ($52)

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our 2023 Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Weight change
Loss or gain of total body weight
 12 3 74 -0.117 0.178 12 0.000 0.070 14 -0.117 0.510
Obesity
Obese based on clinical guidelines for adults (body mass index of 30 or higher) or children (body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for children of the same age and sex), as appropriate.
12 4 142 -0.151 0.131 12 0.000 0.101 14 -0.151 0.249
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Obesity Labor market earnings associated with obesity $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Health care associated with obesity $15 $7 $32 $8 $61
Mortality associated with obesity $0 $0 $0 $1 $1
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($38) ($38)
Totals $15 $7 $32 ($30) $24
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $64 2014 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($76)
Comparison costs $0 2014 Cost range (+ or -) 25%
On average, these interventions occur over approximately four months. For programs that require intervention staff time, participants received an average of approximately four contact hours. The average per-participant cost of these programs was computed using contact hours and average Washington State 2014 hourly wages of the appropriate professionals who conducted the intervention (generally dietitians, nurses, general practitioners, or therapists). For the remote programs with "eHealth" technology (web or computer programs, automated phone programs), we estimate costs from the calculations of Ritzwoller, D.P. et al., (2013). Economic analyses of the Be Fit Be Well Program: A weight loss program for community health centers. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(12), 1581-1588.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our 2023 Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Doyle, A. C., Goldschmidt, A., Huang, C., Winzelberg, A. J., Taylor, C. B., & Wilfley, D. E. (2008). Reduction of Overweight and Eating Disorder Symptoms via the Internet in Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(2), 172-179.

Estabrooks, P.A., Shoup, J.A., Gattshall, M., Dandamudi, P., Shetterly, S., & Xu, S. (2009). Automated telephone counseling for parents of overweight children: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(1), 35-42.

Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Wilfley, D.E., Patrick, K., Cella, J.A., & Buchta, R. (2002). Behavioral weight control for overweight adolescents initiated in primary care.Obesity Research, 10(1), 22-32.

Wright, J.A., Phillips, B.D., Watson, B.L., Newby, P.K., Norman, G.J., & Adams, W.G. (2013). Randomized trial of a family-based, automated, conversational obesity treatment program for underserved populations. Obesity, 21(9), E369-E378.