The Impact of a Digital Weight Loss Intervention on Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Compared Between Users and Nonusers With Overweight and Obesity: Retrospective Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Noom Weight program is a smartphone-based weight management program that uses cognitive behavioral therapy techniques to motivate users to achieve weight loss through a comprehensive lifestyle intervention. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective database analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of Noom Weight use on health care resource utilization (HRU) and health care costs among individuals with overweight and obesity. METHODS: Electronic health record data, insurance claims data, and Noom Weight program data were used to conduct the analysis. The study included 43,047 Noom Weight users and 14,555 non-Noom Weight users aged between 18 and 80 years with a BMI of ≥25 kg/m² and residing in the United States. The index date was defined as the first day of a 3-month treatment window during which Noom Weight was used at least once per week on average. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance sociodemographic covariates between the 2 cohorts. HRU and costs for inpatient visits, outpatient visits, telehealth visits, surgeries, and prescriptions were analyzed. RESULTS: Within 12 months after the index date, Noom Weight users had less inpatient costs (mean difference [MD] -US $20.10, 95% CI -US $30.08 to -US $10.12), less outpatient costs (MD -US $124.33, 95% CI -US $159.76 to -US $88.89), less overall prescription costs (MD -US $313.82, 95% CI -US $565.42 to -US $62.21), and less overall health care costs (MD -US $450.39, 95% CI -US $706.28 to -US $194.50) per user than non-Noom Weight users. In terms of HRU, Noom Weight users had fewer inpatient visits (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.03), fewer outpatient visits (MD -0.78, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.62), fewer surgeries (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00), and fewer prescriptions (MD -1.39, 95% CI -1.76 to -1.03) per user than non-Noom Weight users. Among a subset of individuals with 24-month follow-up data, Noom Weight users incurred lower overall prescription costs (MD -US $1139.52, 95% CI -US $1972.21 to -US $306.83) and lower overall health care costs (MD -US $1219.06, 95% CI -US $2061.56 to -US $376.55) per user than non-Noom Weight users. The key differences were associated with reduced prescription use. CONCLUSIONS: Noom Weight use is associated with lower HRU and costs than non-Noom Weight use, with potential cost savings of up to US $1219.06 per user at 24 months after the index date. These findings suggest that Noom Weight could be a cost-effective weight management program for individuals with overweight and obesity. This study provides valuable evidence for health care providers and payers in evaluating the potential benefits of digital weight loss interventions such as Noom Weight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".